The Effect of Eurasian Orientation on the Relations between Russia and America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="1Body">The international system is an arena for relations and interactions. Sometimes these relations are along with peace and sometimes with conflicts and tensions. Accordingly, countries use certain ideologies and policies that can lead to the promotion or demotion of their position in the international system. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a turning point for the change of the nature of the international system -from bipolar to unipolar- and also Russia’s attempt to redefine its lost identity which prepared the ground for the influx of new discussions and approaches in the international arena. Seeking its lost identity, Russia came up with the reality that Atlantic Orientation and following the unipolar system not only did not solve its problems but led to its decline, disappointment and frustration at the internal and international level; therefore, with Putin’s accession to power, another major turning point came in Russian foreign policies, which led to the improvement of the economic conditions in Russia following the increase in the oil price and Putin’s strategic leadership and management. The policy and approach taken in Russia originated from the self-confidence it had built up. This not only increased Russia’s maneuverability at the region but leveled the ground for its confrontation with America and challenging the unipolar system. As a result, adopting the Eurasian Orientation policy since 2000 not only caused Russia’s attention to turn to Central Asia countries and Caucasus but has also promoted an aggressive or offensive attitude in the policies taken by this country. Thus, taking an Offensive Realism approach, the present study seeks to find an answer to this question: What is the role and effect of Eurasian Orientation policy on Russia’s foreign policies towards America? The data for this study were collected by drawing on dissertations, libraries and research findings and analyzed using a descriptive analytic approach.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".