Central Asia Security Problems in the Context of Coalition Troops Withdrawal from Afghanistan
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 importance of the problem under study is suggested by the geopolitical significance of Central Asia, increased threat to its security on behalf of radical Islamism, as well as ended coalition troops withdrawal from Afghanistan by the beginning of 2015. The article is intended to analyze the link between the withdrawals of International Security Assistance Force from Afghanistan and the modern security challenges of Central Asia, also to determine counteraction to these threats. The main approach to the study of the problem is geopolitical analysis of the region and threats to its security. During the study there were pointed out such factors as the penetration of Islamic extremists into the region from Afghanistan, maintenance of US military bases, as well as the feasibility of emergence of destructive political developments, like “Arab spring”. The particular emphasis is given to the role of Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Collective Security Treaty Organization in providing regional security and preventing destructive scenario. The materials of the article might be useful in conducting scientific research on the issues of Central Asia, providing lectures and seminars in training, also working out mechanisms of counteraction to the treats of regional security.
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 | 0.000 | 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