MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518079210 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2016.1211959

A Tale of Two Unions: Russia–Belarus Integration Experience and its Lessons for the Eurasian Economic Union

2016· article· en· W2518079210 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic unionDivergence (linguistics)UnderpinningPolitical scienceState (computer science)Economic integrationEuropean unionDevelopment economicsEconomyPolitical economySociologyInternational tradeEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present contribution explores the evolution of the Eurasian initiative against the background of a more distant integration project, namely the Russia-Belarus Union State. It demonstrates that in spite of the Eurasian integration project’s more solid economic foundation and constant engagement from Moscow, the former has demonstrated a persistent similarity to the latter. The article looks into the divergence of interests of the Eurasian project participants, which has been exacerbated by the Ukraine crisis. Contrary to the main idea underpinning both the Russia–Belarus and the Eurasian initiatives, their evolution has not led to a full abolition of borders and these have demonstrated a persistent tendency to find their way back into existence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.327 · 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