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
National identity is forged and defined through a dual process of stressing the similarities of the in-group (the ‘Self’) and its differences with those outside the political community (the ‘Others’). The need to define the in-group as different becomes more compelling when the ‘significant Other’ denies the authenticity of the in-group and seeks to subvert its separate existence, as in the Ukrainian–Russian case. This article places the Ukrainian–Russian relationship within discussions of national identity, culture and ‘Otherness’ by examining how Ukraine's ruling elites hold no consensus over how to relate to the ‘significant Other’ (Russia). The ruling elites hail from the centrist and centre-right camps and are attempting to create a new national identity outside Eurasia. But, they remain divided over whether Russia is part of Europe and how to return to Europe. The left, meanwhile, see Europe as the ‘Other’ and Russia as the successor state to the former USSR. Therefore, no dominant view of Russia as the ‘Other’ exists in Ukraine and the article discusses the attitudes of the four main political groups (nationalists, the centre-right, centrists and the left) towards Russia and Russians as ‘Others’ within domestic and foreign policy discourse. How Ukraine relates to the Russian ‘Other’ will both affect the domestic nation-building project in Ukraine by helping or hindering the integration of its Russian minority, as well as having repercussions upon how Russia redefines its identity in the post-Soviet era.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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