MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069933572 · doi:10.1177/0095327x0202800302

Overview: Civil-Military Relations in Central and Eastern Europe in Former Communist Societies

2002· article· en· W2069933572 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher D. Jones, Natalie Mychajlyszyn

Bibliographic record

VenueArmed Forces & Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCzechCommunismPolitical scienceCivil–military relationsInternal securityPoliticsPolitical economyMonopolyPresidential systemEconomyLawSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews studies on civil-military relations by David Betz (Russia), Daniel Nelson (Romania and Bulgaria), Natalie Mychajlysyn (Ukraine), Marybeth Ulrich (Czech Republic), and Mark Yaniszewski (Poland and Hungary). All note minimal progress in developing a cadre of civilian defense experts who can end the monopoly of ministries of defense on policymaking. Those states that are candidates for NATO membership have made much more drastic cuts in the size of paramilitary and internal security forces than have Russia and Ukraine. They have also moved toward postures and doctrines based on coalition security policies, which have all but ruled out the internal use of armed force on the model that Milosevic developed in the former Yugoslavia and Tudjman attempted to develop in Croatia. In Russia and Ukraine, the strong presidential systems have at their disposal large internal armed forces that could be available for targeting domestic political opponents or minority groups.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArmed Forces & SocietySame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207