Review of the book: Natufe Igho, 2015. “Russian foreign policy: in search of lost influence”, Moscow, Krasand, 297 p.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author of the monograph, Professor of Political Science of the Institute of African Studies O. Igo Natufe, is a specialist in Soviet and Russian foreign policy. He was educated at the Peoples' Friendship University, as well as at Carleton and McGill Universities (Canada), where he received a doctorate. In addition to the scientific work, he taught political science and international relations at universities in Canada, Ghana and Nigeria. His book is based on documentary evidence, on the vast literature of both Russian and foreign authors about Russian diplomacy since the 1980s. The author convincingly proved the chronological framework of the study. Lower chronological milestone - 1985 - can truly be called an important milestone in the history of modern Russia. That was the year the event took place, which have made major adjustments to the internal and external strategy of Moscow, including its foreign policy. The presented research work demonstrates the highly quality of the researcher, analyzing the qualitative theoretical level serious scientific problems. In his monograph, the author refers to the analysis of geopolitical and geo-economic processes taking place in the CIS which has arisen after the collapse in December 1991 of a major actor in world politics, as the USSR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.022 |
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".