Globalization, Social Welfare Reform and Democratic Identity in Russia and other Post-communist Countries
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
This article provides a brief comparison of the politics of old-age pension reform in two post-communist countries, Latvia and the Russian Federation. As Soviet successor states, both countries inherited similar pension systems from the former Communist system, a system which although comprehensive, proved to be costly and inefficient in the 1990s. In addition, pension reform proved to be politically unpopular in both countries. Yet Latvia has succeeded in adopting a relatively rapid and thorough pension reform, while in Russia efforts at pension reform were more contentious. The article examines the political factors that influenced the dynamics of reform in the two countries. In particular, Latvia's greater international orientation was important in influencing its government's commitment to pursue pension reform; Latvia's elites saw long-term benefits for sovereignty and national identity from pursuing reforms inspired by international influences, whereas Russian leaders tended to perceive few advantages from western-oriented reforms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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