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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Аннотация. Статья посвящена проблеме использования в научном обороте термина конфликты низкой интенсивности . Это понятие появилось в поствьетнамскую эру в риторике американских политиков и военных в качестве эвфемизма для вооруженных противостояний с партизанским движением или повстанцами. В январе 1986 г. госсекретарь Дж. Шульц назвал данный тип конфликтов важнейшим вызовом, с которым США будут сталкиваться как минимум до конца XX века. Понятие конфликт низкой интенсивности используется и в американских официальных документах, в частности в полевом уставе сухопутных войск США. В то же время ученые, занимавшиеся данной проблематикой, отмечали размытость и туманность данного термина. В статье предпринята попытка описать спектр мнений различных отечественных и зарубежных исследователей по вопросу об определении термина конфликты низкой интенсивности , в том числе авторов коллективной монографии Института США и Канады РАН Конфликты низкой интенсивности в американской военнополитической стратегии в начале XXI века , изданной в 2018 г. Abstract. The article is devoted to the problem of using the term low-intensity conflicts in scientific terms. This concept appeared in the post-Vietnam era in the rhetoric of American politicians and the military as a euphemism for armed confrontations with the guerrilla movement or rebels. In January, 1986, Secretary of state J. D. Schultz called this type of conflict the most important challenge that the United States would face at least until the end of the XX century. The concept of low-intensity conflict is also used in American official documents, in particular in the field Charter of the US army. At the same time, scientists who dealt with this problem noted the vagueness and nebula of this term. The article attempts to describe the range of opinions of various domestic and foreign researchers on the definition of the term low-intensity conflicts, including the authors of the collective monograph of the Institute of the United States and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences Low-intensity conflicts in American military-political strategy at the beginning of the XXI century, published in 2018.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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 it