MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900367022 · doi:10.29173/psur42

The Reincarnation of the Cold War

2018· article· en· W2900367022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Trevor Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNuclear Issues and Defense
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperpowerAnnexationReincarnationCold warPolitical scienceState (computer science)DemocracySpanish Civil WarPower (physics)Great powerGeopoliticsPolitical economyLawEconomic historyHistorySociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the complex challenges to present-day state relations between the United States and the Russian Federation, and how the worsening of state relations between these two powers is indicative of the reincarnation of the Cold War of the 20th century. In describing the complexities of the U.S.-Russia relationship, this paper explores three contemporary international issues that have led to its aggravation. First, it examines the apparent Russian hacking of the U.S. Democratic Party during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and how such interference is comparable to that which occurred during the 20th century Cold War era. Secondly, it analyzes how the Syrian Civil War, characterized by the United States and Russia supporting opposing sides of the conflict, shares a likeness to the proxy wars of the 20th century Cold War. Lastly, it describes how the Russian annexation of Crimea, and the American-led response to it, are reminiscent of the Soviet and American practices of expanding the limits of their own power while trying to limit that of their rival following the Second World 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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical Science Undergraduate ReviewSame topicNuclear Issues and DefenseFrench-language works237,207