Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the growing challenges in Russian-American diplomacy in the post-Soviet environment. To this end, the study focused on the crisis of Iraq and, more specifically, the US-British bombing of Iraq in 1998 as a source of tension in bilateral relations. In doing so, declassified communications between the US President Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin were reviewed following a discussion of American and Russian foreign policy towards the Iraqi crisis. The review of communications demonstrated that both leaders actively attempted to avoid further divergence by keeping friendly and consensus-building communications while insisting on their differing positions. The Yeltsin-Clinton correspondence also showed that they tried to avoid unilateral action and develop their strategies within international frameworks such as the UN Security Council (UNSC), the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and IAEA. In this regard, Bill Clinton ostensibly sided with UNSCOM, whereas Boris Yeltsin supported the UNSC framework where Russia could exert more influence. The study concluded that, despite these efforts, the US-British bombing of Iraq further alienated the Russian government and affected the post-Soviet world order. These conclusions are significant in that they demonstrate challenges to American diplomatic hegemony and show the earliest roots of divergence in Russian-American presidential diplomacy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".