Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key part of the contemporary Russia challenge is the West’s tendency to misread that country, both its capacity for reform and the West’s own impact on the choices that have shaped its trajectory. Excess faith in the power of the market and the applicability of social science theories skewed Western policy toward Russia in the 1990s, fuelling the xenophobic and nationalistic narratives that laid the foundations of Putinism. Misreading Russia’s historical insecurities after the collapse of the USSR ensured that US triumphalism would play badly in Moscow, contributing to the toxic environment in which Putin ultimately opted to invade Ukraine. None of this justifies the recent excesses of the Putin regime, but it does help to make them intelligible. Appreciating how the West has misread and mismanaged Russia in the past should contribute to more realistic and more effective approaches in the future. La Russie incomprise Un élément capital de l’« énigme russe » repose dans la tendance occidentale à mal interpréter la Russie, tant dans sa capacité pour la réforme que dans l’impact que l’Occident lui-même a pu avoir sur les décisions qui ont déterminé sa trajectoire. Durant les années 1990, une foi excessive en le pouvoir de l’économie de marché et en l’application des théories des sciences sociales a biaisé la politique occidentale vis-à-vis de la Russie, alimentant les courants xénophobes et nationalistes qui sont à la source du poutinisme. L’incompréhension des insécurités historiques de la Russie après la chute de l’URSS a fait en sorte que le triomphalisme américain a été mal reçu à Moscou, ce qui a contribué à la création de l’environnement toxique qui entourait Poutine et a, ultimement, participé à l’invasion russe de l’Ukraine. Rien de cela ne justifie les récents excès du régime de Poutine, mais cela permet de les rendre plus intelligibles. Décortiquer comment l’Occident a échoué à comprendre et à gérer le cas de la Russie par le passé devrait permettre d’établir des approches plus réalistes et efficaces pour le futur.
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 | 0.001 | 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".