Integration Process in Central Asia: The Interaction of Nationalism and Regionalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the end of the cold war, Central Asia reappeared in the international community's view and became an important region in geopolitics. The independent Central Asian States have begun to seek regional cooperation in order to maintain regional security and stability and develop their national economies. But so far, the process of integration in Central Asia has been tortuous and slow. The Central Asian region has even been described by some scholars as the region with the lowest degree of regionalization in the world. By sorting out the history of the development of ethnicity and nationalism in Central Asia, this paper analyzes the reasons hindering the development of regional integration in Central Asia from the perspective of the interaction between nationalism and regionalism. The methodological basis of the paper is a synthesis of methodological regionalism and methodological nationalism. The paper argues that ethnic problems and nationalism in Central Asia constrain the formation of the concept of regional identity. At the same time, regionalism in Central Asia has triggered concerns of Central Asian nation-states about the loss of sovereignty of some states and state nationalism. The interaction of the two factors ultimately negatively affected the development of integration in Central Asia.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".