RETRACTED: Russia’s Caucasus policy and its international consequences (70-80’s of XVIII century)
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article discusses the problems related to the Caucasus policy of Russia in the last quarter of the 18th century and the plan to create an Armenian state on the lands of Azerbaijan. It is known that Russia had to leave the South Caucasus at the beginning of the century for obvious reasons. In the last quarter of the 18th century, Russia resumed the policy of the South Caucasus, and its main goal was to create a christian state at the expense of Azerbaijan lands. In general, the sharp changes in the Caucasus policy of Russia beginning from the end of the 18th century are analyzed against the background of the successes achieved as a result of Russia's victory over the Ottoman state in the war of 1768-1774. Russia relied on Armenians and Georgians to invade Caucasus and, fearing that the invasion of Caucasus would provoke a negative reaction in the international world, planned to create a сhristian state dependent on Russia in the first stage of the invasion. It should have been the Armenian state. Therefore, Russia covered the invasion of South Caucasus with military and political methods, as well as with the Christian factor. In general, the article provides detailed information about the failure of the diplomatic negotiations of Russia and other problems. The topic is studied in details based on sources and literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".