Three Years on a Path to Nowhere: The Hashimoto Initiative in Russian–Japanese Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FT/ he end of the cold war produced strong expectations, both in Russia and Japan, for final normalization of their relations and the promotion of extensive co-operation; nevertheless, the abrogation of Yeltsin's visit to Tokyo in August 1992 has basically undermined that possibility. Although he went toJapan in 1993, Yeltsin's visit did not produce much, leaving the relationship at a stalemate. Since then, both nations have looked for a new paradigm without much success. What looked like a move to break the ice was the intensification ofJapanese activities under PrimeMinister Ryutaro Hashimoto (1996-1998), his new Eurasian doctrine in particular. Proclaimed in July 1997, it was largely evaluated as a radical breakthrough in the Russian-Japanese dialogue.' Hashimoto called for a revision ofJapan's Russian policy and pledged to base future relations on three principles: mutual trust, mutual benefit and a long-term to create a solid foundation for the twenty-first century. Two major points encouraged a positive Russian response: a statement that the territorial dispute over the Northern Territories (Southern Kurils) should be discussed calmly, based on a long-term perspective and a call for expanded co-operation in the development of energy resources in Siberia and the Russian Far East.2 This statement paved the way for two no neckties Russian-Japanese summits in 1997-1998 and for the official visit to Moscow by Hashimoto's successor, Keizo Obuchi, in 1998, which was responded to by the visit of Yeltsin's successor, Vladimir Putin, to Tokyo in 2000. A formal goal to reach
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".