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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".