ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM :Penataan Keamanan Model Asia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is aimed to describe the role of ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in maintaining security in Asia. Security in Asia-Pacific became uncertain after the cold war, followed by Russian and United States troops withdrawal from the region. ASEAN's concern to this situation, was shown by establishing regional forum, known as ASEAN Regional Forum.Established in Bangkok in 1993, ARF provides a forum for managing conflict in the region. Although it bears the name of ASEAN, the participants are not confined to ASEAN, but it has seats for United States, China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Canada and Australia. What is interesting of this institution is that it employs 'the Asian Way' for resolving conflict. By promoting consultative mechanism and non use military force, the main purpose of ARF is resolving conflict in the region through preventive diplomacy.The procces of this forum is run through two ways, called first track and second track. First track is a meeting of ARF's official, while second track involves academicians and related institutions such as ASEAN-ISIS. The academician institutes hold several discussions as well as workshops on topics that have relevance with the mission of ARF.\n\nKeywords : preventive diplomacy -- Asian way
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".