MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414728338 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98724-3_5

The Civil War and the Russian Military Interventions in Donbas

2025· book-chapter· en· W4414728338 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Katchanovski

Bibliographic record

VenueRethinking political violence · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianSpanish Civil WarAnnexationSecessionGovernment (linguistics)Civil servants

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter examines the role of separatists, the Yanukovych government, the Maidan opposition, and the Maidan government, far-right organizations, Russia, the United States, and the EU in the conflict in Donbas. It uses a specially commissioned survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in 2014 to analyze public support for separatism in Donbas, compared to other regions of Ukraine, and the major factors which affect such support. It concludes that all these actors contributed in various ways to the conflict in Donbas, which involved both a civil war and direct Russian military interventions in August 2014 and January–February 2015. The chapter links the origins of this conflict to Euromaidan, specifically, the Ukrainian government overthrow by means of the Maidan massacre and the secession and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The KIIS survey shows that support for separatism was much stronger in Donbas compared to other regions, with the exception of Crimea. The Donbas war escalated into the Russia-Ukraine war as result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRethinking political violenceSame topicEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military StrategiesFrench-language works237,207