MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296212544 · doi:10.5509/201689153

Russia's Reorientation to Asia: Causes and Strategic Implications

2016· article· en· W2296212544 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexander Korolev

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRussia and Soviet political economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaPoliticsPolitical scienceBalance (ability)East AsiaPower (physics)Foreign policyInternational relationsDevelopment economicsEconomic powerEconomyPolitical economyEconomic systemEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research applies a neoclassical realist framework to explore the causes and consequences of Russia's recent “reorientation to Asia.” Based on an analysis of publications and fieldwork conducted in Russia, the paper examines both the international systemic and the Russian domestic factors that have contributed to this important change in Russia's foreign policy. At the system level, Russia's turn to Asia can be understood as a part of its longer campaign of balancing against American unipolar domination. At the unit level, economic demands to develop Russia's eastern territories, together with the complex socio-political processes of post-Soviet identity formation, generated a political environment that was conducive to Asia-oriented policies. Russia's reorientation to Asia implies not only comprehensive strategic cooperation with specific Asian powers, such as China, South Korea, or Japan, but also a “reinvention” of Russia as a Eurasian power. Given Russia's cross-continental spread and economic and military capabilities, its reorientation to Asia may have significant implications for the balance of power in the current world 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicRussia and Soviet political economyFrench-language works237,207