MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392575482 · doi:10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i03-16

Turkish-Russian Cooperation in Procurement S-400 TRIUMF Missile System 2019

2024· article· en· W4392575482 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hendra Maujana Saragih, Agung Tri Laksono

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Science and Human Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas NasionalTRIUMF
KeywordsMissile defenseTurkishGeopoliticsPolitical scienceProcurementBallistic missileBalance (ability)Nuclear weaponAlliancePoliticsInternational tradeArms controlInternational relationsMissileLawBusinessEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to explain the reasons for Turkey to purchase Russian S-400 missiles which have reached payment transactions in 2019, amidst Turkey's existence as a member of NATO and an American ally. Turkey's decision to purchase Russian S-400 ballistic missile weapons has been classified as a unilateral move that violates the alliance agreement with the United States. Meanwhile, on the other hand, Turkey's decision to join in the purchase of Russian S-400 missile weapons is needed to make a good impact in relation to Turkey and Russia's future relations. This study is using several theories, such as: Geopolitics, International Politics, National Interests, and Balance of Threat. This research tries to explain the existence of several engagements from Russia that made Turkey decide to buy S-400 weapons. Turkey views cooperation with Russia as a way to prevent and minimize conflicts with Russia in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social Science and Human ResearchSame topicEconomic Sanctions and International RelationsFrench-language works237,207