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 war between Russia and Georgia (RGW) from 8–12 August 2008 triggered different interpretations. Although initially Western discourse and media coverage took at face value Georgia's version of the unfolding of the war, subsequent evidence has disproved the latter. Russia only reacted to an unprovoked attack on South Ossetia in the middle of the night, which caused hundreds of civilian deaths as well as those of many Russian peacekeepers. Much of the initial argument about Russia embarking on a ‘new Cold War’ does not, therefore, stand up to scrutiny. By examining the war and the developments that led to it—as well as the behaviour of Russia, the United States, the European Union and NATO—this article argues that, far from opening a new Cold War, the RGW may have been a turning point, but in a very different direction. It indicates the end of the ‘unipolar moment’ and the beginning of a new era in the international system, in which the imperative for recognition and respect of newly emerging or resurgent powers has come into its own.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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