Risks and Constraints of Sub-Federal Politics in Russia under Vladimir Putin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Russia’s political system can be best understood as an electoral patronal regime in which key actors are organized into a single pyramid of authority that dominates the political arena, particularly in the ethnic republics. It is argued that the asymmetric federalization of post-Soviet Russia and centralization of governance were stabilizing for the state because, during the tumultuous transition from Communism, they have acted as counterweights to such centrifugal forces as nationalism and religious radicalism. The article addresses this question: Does the political regime under Putin limit the behaviour of regional elites by structuring and prioritizing their agendas or, on the contrary, does this regime gradually devolve to match the underlying political configuration of the state? The article concludes that in multi-ethnic hybrid regimes that preserve contested elections, as does Russia, regional politics matters more than in typical authoritarian regimes. Since Putin’s popularity and power are closely tied to Russia’s economic stability and anti-Western sentiment, protracted economic stagnation coupled with growing social discontent at the regional level will trigger a long-awaited centrifugal change in political authority and may eventually lead to political fragmentation after Putin.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".