U.S. Congress and policy of the Donald Trump administration with regard to Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".