Belarus in the Lukashenka Era: National Identity and Relations with Russia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The political development in the Republic of Belarus differs sharply from that of Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, and Lithuania during the past decade. While her neighbors have ascended on a path toward democracy and greater transparency, Belarus has been descending into authoritarianism. Politically, Belarus shows more similarities with the republics of post-Soviet Central Asia than with its neighbors in Europe. In fewer than fifteen years, Belarus has gone from being a new and fragile democracy to a pariah state, which the United States refers to as an "outpost of tyranny" and the European Union (EU) calls "the last dictatorship in Europe."1 Belarus' political evolution during the post-Communist period can be divided into three phases: independence, liberalization, and establishment of democratic national institutions (1991–94); conflict between president and parliament, strengthening of the presidential powers, and weakening of democratic institutions and independence (1994–96); and one-man authoritarian rule (since 1997).2 Why and how did this happen in Belarus? This article seeks to find some of the answers in the absence of a strong national identity and in the public's weak identification with the national institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it