MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963668071 · doi:10.31857/s032120680005617-2

U.S. Congress and policy of the Donald Trump administration with regard to Russia

2019· article· en· W2963668071 on OpenAlexaff
Oleg Terebov

Bibliographic record

VenueUSA & Canada Economics – Politics – Culture · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Political and Economic Relations
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSanctionsDemocracyPresidential systemAdministration (probate law)LegislaturePoliticsLawNegotiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article deals with the activities of senators and congressmen in the 115th and 116th US Congresses (through the first two months of the latter’s work in 2019), aimed at stepping up political and sanction pressure on Russia, limit freedom of actions of president Donald Trump with regard to Russia, and discredit all his possible attempts to resume working dialog with the Russian leadership. It is noted that a numerous coalition, consisting of the Republican and Democratic senators and congressmen, aimed at offering support to Ukraine and its protection from the «Russian aggression», emerged in the Congress as early as in 2014. The efforts of this «anti-Russian bloc» have continued under Trump. They consisted not only of harsh, although monotonous, anti-Russian rhetoric, but of introduction of a series of legislative initiatives, aimed against Russia’s interests. As a rule, they were sponsored by a group of both Republicans and Democrats, and if submitted to vote, they were passed by absolute, that is bipartisan majorities. Adoption of the Countering Adversaries of America through Sanctions Act in 2017 became the chief achievement of this bloc. It was passed by such a great majority that Trump was forced to sign it, at the same time accusing the Congress of violation of the presidential prerogatives. The bipartisan unity, however, did not work when Republicans turned down Democratic requests to disclose complete information on the negotiations between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. In the author’s opinion, Russia is seen as an opponent both by Trump and the whole US ruling class, but the American president does not have a clear understanding of the goals and tasks in arranging relations with Russia. Consequently, the anti-Russian actions in the Congress are, first of all, an instrument of political pressure on Trump himself. As the elections of 2020 are coming closer, and the political struggles are sharpening, anti-Russian actions will acquire more various and harsh character, and the «Russian policy» may become one of the key themes of the forthcoming electoral campaign.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSA & Canada Economics – Politics – CultureSame topicGlobal Political and Economic RelationsFrench-language works237,207