Informal Diplomacy: Stabilization and Resettlement in thePost-War South Ossetia,” ISA Annual Convention, 26 – 29. březen2014, Toronto, Canada;
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although of it five-day duration, the war in South Ossetia was not only an example of large-scale violence, but also an indicator of diplomatic failures. The war cost high causalities and brought the region into destruction, as well as reestablished the mutually hostile Russian-Georgian relations. There were no winners in the war and the status of South Ossetia remained unresolved. Some states (Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, Venezuela and Tuvalu) have recognized the independence of the South Ossetia government, but the majority of the international remained reluctant to issue any decision on that matter. As the result, South Ossetia transformed into a podium for foreign policy lobbyists and political activists, who have relentlessly seized the opportunity to promote a particular set of the geo-political interests of the states they represent. Given the unresolved status of South Ossetia, this article aims to study key agendas and the activities of political networks, as i.e. the Georgian government and the South Ossetia interim administration; collaboration networks of Russian foreign ministry and the ministry of foreign relations of South Ossetia; and, the EU’s monitoring mission in Georgia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".