Canadian Political Science Association in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes changes in political parties, political leaders, and regional political orientations in Ukraine in 2002-2006. The question is whether these changes are revolutionary or evolutionary. Most previous studies describe the culmination moment of these changes during the 2004 presidential elections as a revolution (the Orange Revolution). My hypothesis is that not a revolution but a major electoral realignment occurred in the Ukrainian politics since 2002. A realignment theory refers to elections that produce significant and relatively long-term changes in dominant parties, leaders, issues and preferences of voters. This study employs comparative analysis of regional support for pro-Yushchenko parties in the 2002 and 2006 parliamentary elections and support for Viktor Yushchenko in the 2004 presidential elections. The paper uses surveys conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology and the Razumkov Center in 2002-2006 to compare changes in political orientations in regions of Ukraine. This paper concludes that the changes in political leadership, regional political orientation, and political parties are best described as an evolutionary electoral realignment and not as a revolution. 3
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.681 | 0.318 |
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".