From Transcaucasia to the South Caucasus: Structural and Discursive Predicaments in Armenia’s Regional Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy practitioners and scholars have long believed that the South Caucasus, as a distinct region, will have no future as long as its regional conflicts remain unresolved, borders are disputed or sealed, and economic cooperation is minimal. However, the missing component in such analyses is how the three countries of the region – Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia – view the Caucasus from within as a political project and a geospatial unit. To address this lacuna, this study explores how Armenia’s political and intellectual elites have perceived the shaping, (re)invention, and evolution of the Caucasus, as well as the progress and results of integration projects therein, over the last 200 years. This paper argues that historical experiences and dominant nationalist narratives in Armenia have generated and assigned a dual role to the South Caucasus. On the one hand, it was perceived as a geopolitical space dominated by Russia, where at least part of the Armenian nation could continue to live in security and thrive; on the other hand, it was seen as part of a divided homeland.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".