2020 Constitutional Reform and Center-Region Relations in Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines 2020 constitutional reform in Russia. The amendments recently were approved on July, 1st by nation-vide vote. The purpose of the article is to analyze center-region trends in Russia and how they are reflected in the proposed constitutional amendments. The prospective changes in regional representation in the federal decision-making process shall also be discussed. The article shows how chaotic decentralization during the 90-s was replaced by a trend of centralization. The 2020 constitutional reform reflects a further strengthening of this centralization trend. The problems faced by the Russian regions are left unresolved. It is becoming an overcentralized country. The amended Russian Constitution envisages a reformed role for the Russian State Council. It is supposed to be defined in the Constitution as a consultative body by the President and is expected to be formed of regional leaders. At the same time, the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly (the upper chamber of the Russian parliament), which represents the different constituencies, is also set to be reformed. However, after the reform some of its powers shall be restricted. The changes to regional representation in the federal decision-making process has a controversial and inconsistent character and inevitably supports the general trend towards centralization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".