MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214667654 · doi:10.26443/firr.v10i1.24

Russia’s Legitimizing Narrative for Annexation: Impetus or Pretext?

2020· article· en· W3214667654 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Presian Dragiev

Bibliographic record

VenueFlux International Relations Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnexationPretextNarrativeArgument (complex analysis)Principle of legalityPolitical sciencePoliticsLawForeign policyIdentity (music)SociologyLaw and economicsPhilosophyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the Russian Federation’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the Kremlin constructed a legitimizing narrative to justify its inflammatory foreign policy decision. This narrative in turn builds an argument for the legality of the annexation, as well as one for its morality. These arguments were presented as the driving forces for its decision to occupy and annex the peninsula and then diffused by Russia’s political class in addition to their security-related justifications. But a closer examination of these arguments and how they relate to realities on the ground suggests they are closer to being pretexts for the annexation than being its driving forces. This narrative offers a glimpse into how the Kremlin uses notions of identity, historical links, and international norms championed by the west to legitimize its foreign policies on the international scene.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.004

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.325 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlux International Relations ReviewSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207