MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328630890 · doi:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154236

Choosing Europe over Russia: what has Ukraine gained?

2016· article· en· W2328630890 on OpenAlexaff
Mikhail A. Molchanov

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Politics and Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRussia and Soviet political economy
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernization theoryVulnerability (computing)Political scienceCustoms unionInternational tradeEuropean unionCold warEconomic unionDevelopment economicsEconomyEconomic policyEconomicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ukraine's choice of European association and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the EU over membership in the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) advocated by Russia has plunged the country into chaos and led to the most serious security crisis in Europe since the end of the Cold War. While much has been said about Russia's role in provoking the crisis and contributing to Ukraine's misery, the discussion of relative economic merits of Ukraine's European association versus Eurasian integration has been put on back burner now that Ukraine's choice seems to be clear. This article revisits the question, arguing that the DCFTA increases the country's vulnerability to external shocks and accelerates the decline of domestic industry. In the short- to mid-term perspectives, Ukraine would be better off as a member of the common economic space with Russia and other ECU states, while in the long-term perspective ECU membership could offer a less painful, albeit more protracted, path to economic modernization.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Politics and SocietySame topicRussia and Soviet political economyFrench-language works237,207