From 3e5780337e1fe6a671aa24650a9562d1361eae1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: BOTAlex Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 14:30:19 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] CSS school text --- src/routes/school/css/+page.svelte | 176 +++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/routes/school/css/+page.svelte b/src/routes/school/css/+page.svelte index cfa1a40..bbde1e2 100644 --- a/src/routes/school/css/+page.svelte +++ b/src/routes/school/css/+page.svelte @@ -189,7 +189,9 @@ -
Full Network Overview
+
+ Full Network Overview +
@@ -270,7 +272,7 @@ -
+
Explore Country Level Relationships
@@ -422,95 +424,101 @@ -
Main findings
+
+ Main findings +
-
-
-
- Our analysis suggests that diplomatic attention in UN speeches is - unevenly distributed across countries. A smaller number of countries - appear much more frequently in international discourse, while many - others are mentioned less often. In the network, countries such as - the United States, China, and Russia stand out as especially visible - actors, which suggests that global political attention is - concentrated around a limited set of highly prominent states. -
-
- The country level graphs also show that diplomatic attention is - directional rather than balanced. Some countries appear to direct - attention broadly toward many others, while some are more prominent - as targets of discussion. For example, the United States appears as - a country with broad outgoing attention, while China and Russia also - emerge as major targets of incoming attention from other countries. - This shows that centrality in the network can reflect different - roles: a country may be highly active in talking about others, - highly visible as a topic of discussion, or both. -
-
- Another important pattern is that international political discourse - is not purely positive or purely negative. The sentiment based - graphs suggest that the same country can receive both supportive and - critical references depending on who is speaking and in what - context. This is especially visible for countries like the United - States, China, and Russia, which appear in a mix of positive and - negative relationships rather than fitting into a single simple - category. This highlights the complexity of diplomatic language, - where cooperation, criticism, and strategic concern can exist at the - same time. -
-
-
- The filtered graphs also make it easier to compare large, globally - central actors with smaller or more selective ones. For example, the - Vatican appears much less densely connected than countries such as - the United States, China, or Russia. This suggests a more selective - pattern of diplomatic attention, where some actors are present in - the network but do not occupy the same broad, central role as major - geopolitical powers. -
-
- Taken together, these findings suggest that UN speeches reveal more - than isolated political statements. They reflect a larger structure - of global diplomatic attention in which a small number of countries - occupy especially central positions, while others appear in more - limited or specialized ways. By combining mention frequency with - positive and negative framing, the network provides a more nuanced - picture of how countries are represented in international discourse. -
-
+
+
+
+
+ Our analysis suggests that diplomatic attention in UN speeches is + unevenly distributed across countries. A smaller number of + countries appear much more frequently in international discourse, + while many others are mentioned less often. In the network, + countries such as the United States, China, and Russia stand out + as especially visible actors, which suggests that global political + attention is concentrated around a limited set of highly prominent + states. +
+
+ The country level graphs also show that diplomatic attention is + directional rather than balanced. Some countries appear to direct + attention broadly toward many others, while some are more + prominent as targets of discussion. For example, the United States + appears as a country with broad outgoing attention, while China + and Russia also emerge as major targets of incoming attention from + other countries. This shows that centrality in the network can + reflect different roles: a country may be highly active in talking + about others, highly visible as a topic of discussion, or both. +
+
+ Another important pattern is that international political + discourse is not purely positive or purely negative. The sentiment + based graphs suggest that the same country can receive both + supportive and critical references depending on who is speaking + and in what context. This is especially visible for countries like + the United States, China, and Russia, which appear in a mix of + positive and negative relationships rather than fitting into a + single simple category. This highlights the complexity of + diplomatic language, where cooperation, criticism, and strategic + concern can exist at the same time. +
+
+
+ The filtered graphs also make it easier to compare large, globally + central actors with smaller or more selective ones. For example, + the Vatican appears much less densely connected than countries + such as the United States, China, or Russia. This suggests a more + selective pattern of diplomatic attention, where some actors are + present in the network but do not occupy the same broad, central + role as major geopolitical powers. +
+
+ Taken together, these findings suggest that UN speeches reveal + more than isolated political statements. They reflect a larger + structure of global diplomatic attention in which a small number + of countries occupy especially central positions, while others + appear in more limited or specialized ways. By combining mention + frequency with positive and negative framing, the network provides + a more nuanced picture of how countries are represented in + international discourse. +
+
-
-
- Example of China’s outgoing vs incoming diplomatic attention -
-
- Interactive -
- -
- + Interactive +
- + + + +