The factor of indigenous peoples in the reintegration of the temporarily occupied Crimea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the influence of the factor of indigenous peoples on the process of reintegration of the temporarily occupied Crimea. The article reveals the importance of considering the needs and opinions of the indigenous peoples of Crimea through the prism of cultural, economic, political, legal, and social aspects to ensure a sustainable and harmonious reintegration of the region. The role of the indigenous peoples of temporarily occupied Crimea is critical and integral in the process of future reintegration, given the region’s unique cultural and historical heritage. The indigenous peoples of Crimea – Crimean Tatars, Krymchaks, and Karaites – are key participants in the process of restoring the socio-economic and political life of the peninsula. The need to ensure the rights of indigenous peoples, a sense of belonging, self-determination, and protection under the guarantees of Ukrainian and international law was emphasized. The involvement of indigenous peoples in dialogue, decision-making, and implementation of development programs will create an opportunity to build a tolerant and inclusive society in the temporarily occupied Crimean region. It has been studied that in world history there are only a few examples of reintegration with the involvement of indigenous peoples – New Zealand, Canada, Norway, and Denmark, which can be useful for Ukraine in reintegration of temporarily occupied Crimea.Keywords: indigenous people, reintegration, Crimea, strategy, impact.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".