MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392963603 · doi:10.1080/14650045.2024.2329948

Russia’s Patronage Over Post-Soviet De Facto States: Protecting Compatriots or Geopolitical Interest in Transnistria?

2024· article· en· W4392963603 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeopolitics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPost-Soviet Geopolitical Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsDe factoPolitical scienceState (computer science)Political economyLawSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most de facto states have patrons. In Eurasia, Russia serves as such to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, as it did to Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. What motivates patronal politics? While constructivists look for answers by studying Russia’s identity, representations and ‘compatriot’ policies and discourse, realists infer Russia’s motives looking at Moscow’s geopolitical interests. As a result, there is no unambiguous answer: is it about moral obligation to protect the brethren or about securing national interests? This article tests it empirically by analysing Russia’s patronage over Transnistria between 2001 and 2009. It investigates the issue of Transnistrian external trade, which Moldova attempted to take control of – something that Transnistria considered as threatening its very survival. The analysis undermines claims about moral motivation as a driver of Russian patronage of de facto states, at least in Transnistria. Russia is clearly reacting to geopolitical changing game rather than to the compatriots’ cry for help.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.310 · 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