MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792740906 · doi:10.1080/09662839.2018.1436049

<i>Kakaя это дружба</i>/what kind of friendship is this? Russia’s “Crimean Syndrome”

2018· article· ru· W2792740906 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Chandler

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Security · 2018
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsAnnexationPolitical scienceSanctionsMacedonianState (computer science)PoliticsDemocracyUkrainianFriendshipLawPolitical economySociologyHistoryAncient historyPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea without the consent of Ukraine was a rare case of a state taking territory from a state with whom it previously enjoyed friendly relations. The paper seeks to explain the causes and consequences of this annexation by examining theories of democratic peace, constructivism and irredentism. In 1971, political scientist Myron Weiner published an article “The Macedonian Syndrome” in the journal World Politics (vol. 23, no. 4, 665–683). In particular, the paper examines the applicability of Weiner’s theses to Russia’s 2014 attempt to annex Crimea from Ukraine. While Weiner’s theory helps to explain Russia’s moves, his theory can be updated to consider the consequences of those moves. Russia attempted to justify its annexation by transposing the concept of friendship from Ukraine itself to a piece of its territory – Crimea. This transposition rested on a false dichotomy between Ukraine and Crimea, and Russia’s failure to live up to its international commitments to respect Ukrainian borders brought swift consequences in the form of Western sanctions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean SecuritySame topicEconomic Sanctions and International RelationsFrench-language works237,207