MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1768080515 · doi:10.21971/p7d595

Soviet Use of Corruption Purges as a Control Mechanism: The Uzbekistan Case

2008· article· en· W1768080515 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossing boundaries · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoviet and Russian History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUzbekEliteLoyaltyGovernment (linguistics)Language changePolitical scienceCommunismPolitical economyEconomic systemDevelopment economicsLawEconomicsPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: In a series of purges between 1982 and 1988, the Soviet government sacked many of the Uzbekistan Communist Party's elite and replaced them with people of unquestionable loyalty to the Kremlin. These purges, which were justified by charges of widespread corruption in the Uzbek Party, have been widely interpreted as indicating a profound change in the policies of the Soviet government, initiated by Yuri Andropov and continued by Mikhail Gorbachev. This essay argues that purges of the type carried out in Uzbekistan were a standard feature of the Kremlin's policy under Brezhnev, and that the first symptom of the Uzbekistan purges manifested themselves well before 1982. The purges should be seen, therefore, as evidence of continuity between the nationalities policies of Brezhnev and his successors, rather than evidence of a changed policy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0290.023
Scholarly communication0.0040.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it