The Role of Social and Humanitarian Cooperation in the Development of Russian-Georgian Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study is aimed at detection of the features of social and humanitarian cooperation between Russia and Georgia and their impact on the development of relations between the two countries. The possibilities of implementing this cooperation are considered in the absence of political and diplomatic relations. The authors analyze the specifics of inter-state ties and relations development in social, cultural, scientific, educational and spiritual spheres, as well as the obstacles that hinder such interaction. The potential of inter-state dialogue formats such as the "Geneva discussions on security and stability in Transcaucasia", as well as the "Karasin-Abashidze" diplomatic line is being studied. Special attention is paid to the role of non-profit organizations and foundations, including those operating on the territory of Georgia, contributing to the expansion of contacts and ties between the two countries and promotion of the Eurasian vector of Georgia's development. Based on the empirical data of sociological research conducted both in Russia and Georgia, the author of the article identifies the problems that exist in the relations between the two states, and shows the importance of deepening social and humanitarian cooperation to solve them. Research data shows that currently the number of supporters of the pro-Russian vector of the country development, which can become a significant factor in solving many social, economic and political problems of the Georgian state.
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 | 0.001 | 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".