From the “Russian Spring” to the Armed Insurrection: Russia, Ukraine and Political Communities in the Donbas and Southern Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The article is a study of anti-government mobilization in the cities of southern and eastern Ukraine in spring 2014. By closely examining the developments that preceded the outbreak of the armed insurrection in the Donbas, the study seeks to elucidate the various factors that precipitated the veritable collapse of the Ukrainian state in parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and its stabilization elsewhere. The article argues that the armed conflict in the Donbas was hardly a predetermined outcome of the Russian government strategy—which was employed also outside the Donbas—but rather a product of a synergetic confluence of several structural and conjunctural factors that were absent or present to a much smaller degree elsewhere. These included the peculiar political and ethno-cultural profile of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts; a higher degree of the legitimacy crisis of the interim government; the destabilizing effects of the status quo created by the victory of the Euromaidan—not only in terms of the change of Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation and Russia’s apparently compromised interests, but also in terms of the perceived change of status of different ethno-political communities; the proximity of the Russian border, trans-border ethnic politics, and the activities of nationalist groups from Russia; the residual influence of the once-powerful networks associated with clients of the former president Viktor Yanukovych; the relative weakness of organized pro-Ukrainian groups; and last but not least, the incremental collapse of the law enforcement apparatus, which drastically reduced the capacity of Ukrainian authorities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".