MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417495733 · doi:10.19090/i.2025.36.166-183

DOCUMENTS FROM THE ARCHIVES OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC ON THE STANCES OF THE US, FRANCE AND CANADA REGARDING THE 1981/1982 KOSOVO CRISIS

2025· article· sr· W4417495733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jelena Todorović Lazić

Bibliographic record

VenueISTRAŽIVANJA Јournal of Historical Researches · 2025
Typearticle
Languagesr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBalkan and Eastern European Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinistry of Foreign AffairsUnrestChristian ministryThe RepublicOrder (exchange)Foreign policyFace (sociological concept)Confidentiality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the materials gathered from the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic in Paris, this article will present the views of the US, France and Canada on the 1981 Kosovo crisis, when unrest and rioting by ethnic Albanians occurred, but also the following year, when (at least on the face of it) order was restored in Serbia’s southern province. This approach made it possible to draw comparative conclusions as to whether and to what extent the positions of these countries evolved during the period observed. These include mainly confidential reports sent by these countries to NATO, whose key topic is the situation in Kosovo during 1981–1982. In addition, diplomatic notes (France) and intelligence security reports (a report compiled by the General Secretariat for Defense and National Security of the French Republic) were reviewed. One of the objectives of this paper is to present to the scientific community in Serbia some lesser-known facts about the Kosovo issue–specifically positions of the great powers at a time when the Kosovo issue was not so much in the focus of the international community, starting from 1981, when one of the pivotal crises in the history of the Kosovo issue occurred.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 venueISTRAŽIVANJA Јournal of Historical ResearchesSame topicBalkan and Eastern European StudiesFrench-language works237,207