MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W297135739

Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan 1979-89

2013· article· en· W297135739 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ben McVicker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Slavonic Papers · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemoirAfghanSpanish Civil WarHistoryLawMythologyIdeologyPolitical scienceEconomic historySubject (documents)Ancient historyClassicsPoliticsLibrary science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rodric Braithwaite. Afgantsy: Russians in Afghanistan 1979-89. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. xv, 417 pp. Illustrations. Maps. Annexes 1-4. Bibliography. Index. $29.95, cloth.With the NATO-led war in Afghanistan having entered its eleventh year, the Soviet Union's military intervention and occupation of the country is a renewed subject of interest among Western scholars. past few years have seen a steadily increasing number of works on the topic, among them Jonathon Steele's myth-busting semi-memoir, Ghosts of Afghanistan (Counterpoint, 2011), and Artemy Kalinovsky's excellent A Long Goodbye (Harvard University Press, 2011), which offered a re-evaluation of the Soviet withdrawal. Sir Rodric Braithwaite's Afgantsy: Russians in Afghanistan 1979-89 arrived just months later, and stands as the most valuable of these three monographs. Covering a plethora of causes and consequences in immaculate detail, Braithwaite has given us a new standard in studies of the Soviet-Afghan War.Long regarded as a conniving chess move by the Soviets in the Great Game-one which added insult to injury for President Jimmy Carter, with its sacrilegious timing over the Christmas holidays-Western analysts were quick to dig into Cold War formulas in historicizing the event. Be it through the application of the Brezhnev Doctrine or visions of the Soviet Union's aiming for a warm-water port, ideological bents and speculation impeded early studies.Braithwaite, however, rebukes Cold War-era generalizations en masse. He dissects in meticulous detail the events preceding the conflict: with an escalating civil war in Afghanistan and shifting political allegiances in South Asia, the Politburo desired a buffer country on its border. Yet the gerontocracy maintained a largely hands-off foreign policy. That General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev learned of the Saur Revolution of 28 April 1978 via foreign press reports is among the first of many indicators that reveals the Soviet Union's detachment from affairs (pp. 41^12). Forced to begrudgingly accept an unfamiliar Communist regime on its border, the Politburo fell into a staggered decision-making process on how best handle the conflict. It was an unenviable challenge. With the cast of facile Afghan communist leaders bogged down with infighting, Soviet leaders rejected a request by Prime Minister Nur Muhammad Taraki to deploy troops following the Herat uprising of 15 March 1979. Nine months later, on 28 December, the 40th Soviet Army crossed the border in a military intervention that had become all but inevitable. Braithwaite states plainly and convincingly that The idea that it was no more than an irresponsible move taken in secret by a small clique of gerontocrats [...] does not stand up (p. 81).Among the most refreshing features of Braithwaite's account is his willingness to afford due credit to the Soviet Army. …

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Slavonic PapersSame topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207