Political Extremism and Separatism: Brief Review and Analysis of Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents a brief review of the studies of political extremism and separatism and the processes associated with them published in Russian and English over the past 10 years. In the center of the analysis is an attempt to describe the specifics and features of the dominant centers for the formation of a new academic and propaganda language that creates the content of ideas about the modern stage of separatism. The results of the study show that the current stage of the global world order and thinking form a different scale and priorities of the reasons and motives for the separatism use. The structure and significance of separatism factors and ideas about it change, but the content of power and politics and the dominant groups of influence, do not change. The separatism tension points have shifted from the traditional causes and motives for the growth of separatist sentiment to a combination of crude and veiled support for separatism and the use of its potential on a global scale by the governments of the leading countries. The process of reformatting the consciousness and politics of the supporters of separatism, who have created their own nation-states, has gained momentum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".