Security Narratives in Europe:A Wide Range of Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There was a marked change in the UK official assessment of, and position towards, Russia between the 2010 and 2015 National Security Strategy papers. However, while Russia was marked out explicitly as a potential threat in the 2015 assessment, London initially continued a somewhat flaccid and subdued stance towards Moscow until late 2016, when a harder approach emerged. This was, broadly speaking, the end of a quarter of a century attempt by London to build bridges with Moscow. The UK had made the strongest efforts to have a friendly, supportive and cooperative relationship with Russia since the end of the Cold War. At the same time, the two countries remained in deep competition and, in effect, covert confrontation - largely a result of the failure of some sectors in the Russian security apparatus fully to recognise the end of the Cold War, leaving the UK with little alternative but to engage.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".