Bibliographic record
Abstract
Russia-US relations have been the focus of much attention recently, in light of the US-led “war on terror” in Afghanistan and the 2003 war in Iraq. There is concern, in many world capitals, including Moscow, for the implications of American unilateralism in the international system. This paper argues that in the absence of a clear sense of a new Russian identity and subsequently, collective agreement on the national interest, Russian policy makers rely, in part, on the legacy of the Cold War relationship between Moscow and Washington to influence their orientations toward America. As a result, a competitive mentality remains, thirteen years after the end of the Cold War, and as the US asserts its role as the last remaining global superpower, Russia attempts to balance this power, and does so through the promotion of multilateralism in its Foreign Policy Concept, and through its position on the expansion of NATO into East-Central Europe and its opposition to the war in Iraq in 2003. As regards these two issues, Russian foreign policy may be viewed as a direct reaction to its perception of the consolidation of American hegemonic power in the international system.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".