Bibliographic record
Abstract
We publish summary report on the joint seminar of the Russian Council for International Affairs (RCIA), Primakov Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences and Journal “World Economy and International relations”. The discussion raised such issues as the definition of the world order and methods of its study, the characteristics of the modern world order and its main parameters, the evolutionary scenarios of the world order and contours of its future. The organizers of the semiar also raised the question about the possibility of understanding and interpreting the world order outside the limits of the concept of “pole of power”. Participants: Voitolovsky F. G., Director of IMEMO, corresponding member of RAS; Kortunov A. V., Director General of RCIA, Cand. of Sci. (History); Kosolapov N. A., leading researcher at IMEMO, Cand of Sci. (History); Rogov S. M., academician of RAS, Supervisor of Institute for the US and Canadian Studies of RAS; Kharkevich M. V., lecturer at MGIMO, Cand. of Sci. (Political).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".