Bibliographic record
Abstract
The record of U.S. policy toward Russia over the past quarter century is hard to mistake for anything but failure—repeated failure. In January 1991, President George H. W. Bush spoke before a joint session of congress of his desire “to continue to build a lasting basis” for cooperation with Russia.1 Three U.S. presidents—Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama—subsequently embraced the goal of a productive, cooperative, and sustainable relationship with Russia. All tried, none succeeded. Each left the relationship to his successor in a much worse shape than it was in when he took it over. During each presidential transition, the consensus in Washington was that the relationship could not possibly get worse. Each time it did. Now the goal of a productive, cooperative, and sustainable relationship with Russia is more distant than when George H. W. Bush first described his vision. Why? Why, despite the public commitments, the billions of dollars, the summits, the diplomatic initiatives of three successive U.S. presidents, is the relationship between the United States and Russia in the worst shape it has been since before the end of the Cold War?
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".