Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2001 the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or SCO was formally inaugurated. The SCO had as of 2001 as its full members China, Russia, Kakakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Since that time Mongolia, India, Pakistan and Iran have been accepted as observers. There is speculation that Turkmenistan, following its recent change of regime, may also join the SCO in some way in the near future. The US, the European Union, and Japan significantly have not been permitted any form of affiliation with the SCO. Through its full members, the SCO currently covers more than three fifths of the Eurasian landmass and represents one quarter of the world’s population. If we include its observers within the limits of its outreach, the thus expanded organisation includes approximately half the world’s population as well as four openly declared nuclear powers. Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are four of the top twenty countries in the world in terms of proven natural gas reserves. China has become, in tact with its economic development, one of the world’s major consumers of oil and gas. In fact, China and India together have less than 2% of the global gas reserves. Compared with Russia (27%) and Iran (15%). China has significant security concerns in Xinjiang, and potentially with infiltration from Central Asian countries. This paper examines the risks involved for China in the future development of the SCO, an organisation in which each member is treated as an equal, where full consensus is required for decision-making, and where each member possesses a veto. The SCO which came into existence as a forum in which to ratify China’s borders with neighbours, has rapidly developed into an organisation attracting global attention and, possibly, aiming at playing a global role. What are the risks and opportunities offered by membership in the SCO to China intent on its ‘peaceful rise’?
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".