THE FINNO-UGRIC REGION IN THE CONTEXT OF ADMINISTRATIVE BARGAINING IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 1940s -1960s (ON THE MATERIALS FROM KARELIA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main problems of Russia's socio-economic development is the irrational use of its resource potential. During the Soviet period, within the framework of the existing command-administrative economy, the main mechanism for the redistribution of various types of resources was the use of administrative bargaining procedures. The economy of Karelia as a result of the events of the Great Patriotic War and the occupation by Finland was seriously destroyed and needed a quick recovery. At the same time, the presence of large reserves of relatively cheap and geographically accessible timber on the territory of the republic created additional advantages for the regional administrative-party elite in terms of obtaining additional resources from the center in the form of investment and labor. With the loss of Karelia's status as a union republic within a unitary state, there has been a gradual decline in the ability of the regional leadership to go directly with their proposals to the level of central administration. Since the forest reserves of Karelia in the post-war period were significantly depleted, since the mid-1960s the main task of the regional elites in the interaction with the center became the preservation of the main resource to ensure sustainable socio-economic development in the following years.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".