MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205915084 · doi:10.18192/potentia.v11i0.4568

Russian Foreign Energy Policy Towards the European Union

2020· article· en· W4205915084 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Riley Black

Bibliographic record

VenuePotentia Journal of International Affairs · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy Security and Policy
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionInternational tradeGeopoliticsLiberalizationEnergy policyForeign policyPolitical scienceEnergy securityPoliticsEconomyEconomic policyInternational economicsBusinessEconomicsLawRenewable energyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a long history of cooperation, Russia's energy policy towards the European Union has recently been the subject of great consternation amongst scholars and policymakers due to the gas disputes of 2006 and 2009. In addition to European efforts aimed at liberalizing its internal energy market, the looming expiry of the latest Russia-Ukraine gas transit agreement has raised concerns about Russia's potential use of the 'energy weapon,' or more simply its ability to compel European policymakers to acquiesce to various Russian demands through the threat of shutting off gas exports to Europe. Ultimately, I find that this scenario is highly unlikely in the near future, as Russia's foreign energy policy towards the European Union is characterized by a diverse range of interests that largely revolve around achieving security of demand. As such, both the Russian state and Gazprom are significantly limited in their ability to exercise influence over the European Union through natural gas exports, as attempting to do so would jeopardize their domestic political and commercial interests. Moreover, market liberalization in both EU and Russian natural gas markets have weakened the overtly geopolitical aspects of Russia’s energy policy towards the European Union.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePotentia Journal of International AffairsSame topicGlobal Energy Security and PolicyFrench-language works237,207