The Problem of the Development of Relations Between Russia and Turkey in the First Quarter of the 21ˢᵗ Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the problem of the development of relations between Russia and Turkey at the present stage and in the short term. The difficult geopolitical situation indicates the existence of disagreements of the two countries and does not allow reaching a compromise. At the same time, Moscow and Ankara are interested in ensuring national interests and seeking to strengthen their positions in the international arena. The Middle East (primarily Syria), Central Asia and Transcaucasia, and the Black Sea region are places where the views of the two countries’ leaders intersect. On the one hand, Russia and Turkey are ready to join forces to combat new challenges and threats and on the other hand they consider each other as competitors. In this regard, their next confrontation in the context of geopolitical instability cannot be ruled out. Despite the existing differences, Moscow and Ankara continue to develop a multifaceted partnership. This indicates the desire of the two countries to follow the main provisions of the Joint Declarations of 2004 and 2009 which finally formed the regulatory framework. The purpose of the article is to identify possible scenarios for Russian-Turkish interaction.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".