Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this journal issue dedicated to the problems of war and peace we can not ignore the phenomenon of Cold War. Especially because in 2016 the Cold War researchers celebrates several anniversaries. The Cold War was conceptualized and institutionalized exactly 70 years ago. Сoncept of containment was formulated by the American diplomat George Kennan in the so-called the Long Telegram (February 22, 1946), and later he disclosed the basic postulates in the article “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” in Foreign Affairs magazine. In March 1946 former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech about about the USSR and the creation of the Eastern Bloc, and a week later this was followed an Joseph Stalin interview for the newspaper Pravda. Finally, in September 27, 1946 the Soviet Ambassador to the United States N. Novikov wrote the report, which usually considered in conjunction with the Kennan’s Long telegram. Anniversaries provide an opportunity to think again and to discuss issues related to the Cold War history. In consideration that for some our contemporaries it did not become a phenomenon of the past, and others are talking about the Cold War 2.0, XXI century’s Cold War, connecting the Russian-American confrontation with the events taking place in Ukraine. In this discussion participated experts on the Cold War history from Russia, Ukraine and Canada. Intentionally we were asked these questions, each of which may itself be the basis for one or several books. We will not give exhaustive answers to them, and this is not our goal, but we would like to once again clarify the historian’s position on the problem of the Cold War inevitability, the nature and the consequences of its crises, survivability of the Cold War stereotypes, and to understand what other issues need further study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".