CANADA’S PERCEPTION OF DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT IN INDEPENDENT UKRAINE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to a general overview of Canada's attitudes to the democratic development of post-Soviet Ukraine. The article examines the position and opinion of both official and diasporas’ Canada on the development of democracy in Ukraine. It is determined that Ukraine's independence was a kind of signal to the beginning of intensive Canadian cooperation and support for the Ukraine’s transition from a command-administrative economy to a free market. Another important area of support was the building of democratic institutions and civil society. Official Canadian assistance came through a number of channels, but the main institution was the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Another powerful force and initiator of many projects and support programs was the Ukrainian Diaspora in Canada. We can talk about three main events that contributed to the revival of attention from official Canada to Ukraine: the declaration of Independence in 1991, the Orange Revolution in 2004 and Euromaidan and the Revolution of Dignity in late 2013. Each of these events was positively assessed by Canada (as official and diasporas’), and was interpreted as an impetus for potential progress towards democracy. Despite the positive attitude to the development of transit to democracy in post-Soviet Ukraine, Canada is critical of the pace of this transit and the quality of transformation processes. At the same time, representatives of the Diaspora are more outspoken in their criticism of the problems in Ukraine. Among the main obstacles on this path we can name corruption, inhibition of reforms, institutional weakness, confrontation between supporters and opponents of reforms and regional clans since 2014. After the annexation of Crimea by Russia the external factor is also considered. Canada is helping Ukraine strongly in the fight against Russian aggression by providing technical, financial and diplomatic assistance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".