The specter of general economic stagnation: myth or reality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article evaluates the prospects for economic growth in the Russian economy in 2025. The authors proceed from the fact that theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of market conditions have undergone significant evolution over several centuries and today are united by the recognition of both the wave-like nature of periods of economic activity and the need for scrupulous adjustment of macroeconomic policy depending on the emerging trend and the specific phase of the cycle. The purpose of the article is to analyze the current economic situation and verify the forecast regarding the upward or downward trend in the development of the Russian economy in 2025. At the same time, the authors compare the forecast indicators of the dynamics of the GDP of the Russian Federation, given at the end of 2024, and their correction based on the actual results of the functioning of the domestic economy in the first quarter of this year. The study assessed the cautiously optimistic mood at the beginning of 2025. The provision on the existence of grounds for such opinions was substantiated. An analysis of the economic development of the Russian economy in the first quarter of 2025 led to the conclusion that problems have arisen related to the exhaustion of the model that has been characteristic of recent years and which combined the rapid growth of the military-industrial complex and the receipt of oil and gas export revenues in affordable markets that have managed to withstand sanctions pressure. Further investigation led to the understanding that the forecast characteristics regarding the dynamics of GDP need to be adjusted downward. This allowed us to formulate the conclusion that in today’s dispute between researchers who tend to predict a stagnant scenario of the Russian economy and those who are more optimistic, the arguments of the former look more convincing. In practical terms, this conclusion, reached by the authors, puts macroeconomic policy in a situation of difficult choice.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".