Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the mechanisms by which an obscure party journal, published by the Communist Party of Great Britain, moved out of the ‘radical ghetto’ of left-wing publishing into the mainstream of national distribution and debate during the 1980s. Most assessments of left periodicals focus on the ideological perspective(s) or politics of such publications. Few accounts, however, have considered the examination of the more prosaic processes of promotion and distribution of radical periodicals when assessing their success or failure in reaching out beyond their own political and social networks. The mixed success of Marxism Today in the marketplace demonstrates that for the radical press, there is not a clear ‘either/or’ decision for or against the two dominant models: Comedia and Bolshevik. Marxism Today gained advantages by making use of national newsagent distribution and press coverage which, despite the considerable effort expended by the magazine, were not always rewarded.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.009 |
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".