Bibliographic record
Abstract
Japan did not maintain a stable relationship with the Ukrainian governments during the revolutionary years. We can only speak of isolated instances where both sides showed interest in each other. It was the Japanese side that initiated the initial contact. In the summer of 1917, Hitoshi Ashida, an attaché of the Japanese Embassy in the Russian Empire, and in the autumn, Takayanagi Yasutaro, a military observer in the Russian Empire’s army, visited Kyiv. However, any official contact between Kyiv and Tokyo became impossible after the signing of the Brest- Litovsk Treaty. In the following year, Borys Voblyy attempted to serve as a representative of Ukraine in Japan. During this period, the White Army garnered significant attention from Japan, and a Japanese representative was present in Crimea and Odesa between 1919 and 1920. Despite this, they did not engage in direct communication with Ukrainian political forces. However, a representative from Sevastopol sent various reports to the Japanese capital, including information about Ukrainian events. The Tokyo government diligently researched all events and conflicts between different political forces but refrained from active participation. In the years 1920–1921, Ukrainian diplomats sought to use Japan as an intermediary to bolster their foreign policy position. They transmitted several diplomatic notes to the Tokyo government through the Japanese embassy in Rome. Regrettably, these efforts did not yield any tangible results. This situation was closely tied to the primary foreign policy objectives of both governments. Japan’s focus was primarily on the Far Eastern region, and it refrained from active involvement in European affairs. Meanwhile, Ukrainian governments were primarily concerned with establishing relations with Eastern countries.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".