MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125184002 · doi:10.5206/tgar.v2i1.10417

Reframing the Present

2021· article· en· W3125184002 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lucas Luoma-Uhlik

Bibliographic record

VenueThe General Assembly Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianState (computer science)Political scienceCognitive reframingNationalismPoliticsNarrativeEconomic historyPolitical economySovereigntyLawHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 2013-14 Euromaidan protest movement and the ousting of the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and his administration, Ukraine has been embroiled in a political crisis both domestically and with its neighbour, Russia. Namely, the Ukrainian state has lost the Crimean Peninsula to a Russian military incursion and remains engaged in the local Donbas War against pro-Russian insurrectionists. Alongside these events, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s administration has been waging an information war against Ukraine through its employment of Russian state media. In doing so, Russian state media has revived and internationalized Soviet historical narratives of the Great Patriotic War, discrediting the present Ukrainian state by associating it with historic examples of fascism. Thus, this paper argues that contemporary Russian attempts to reframe Ukrainian national history along a Russo-Soviet narrative, without consideration for the more authentically Ukrainian nationalist narrative, is irrespective of the Ukrainian historical experience and is a dangerous abuse of Great Patriotic War imagery in the present. Considering the legacy of the former imperial relationship between Russia and Ukraine, and the Russian state’s current interest in restoring bygone prestige, this dimension of the current threat to Ukrainian sovereignty should not be ignored.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe General Assembly ReviewSame topicEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military StrategiesFrench-language works237,207