National States and International Science: A Comparative History of International Science Congresses in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Cold War United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior studies of modern scientific internationalism have been written primarily from the point of view of scientists, with little regard to the influence of the state. This study examines the state's role in international scientific relations. States sometimes encouraged scientific internationalism; in the mid-twentieth century, they often sought to restrict it. The present study examines state involvement in international scientific congresses, the primary intersection between the national and international dimensions of scientists' activities. Here we examine three comparative instances in which such restrictions affected scientific internationalism: an attempt to bring an international aerodynamics congress to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, unsuccessful efforts by Soviet geneticists to host the Seventh International Genetics Congress in Moscow in 1937, and efforts by U.S. scientists to host international meetings in 1950s cold war America. These case studies challenge the classical ideology of scientific internationalism, wherein participation by a nation in a scientist's fame spares the scientist conflict between advancing his science and advancing the interests of his nation. In the cases we consider, scientists found it difficult to simultaneously support scientific universalism and elitist practices. Interest in these congresses reached the top levels of the state, and access to patronage beyond state control helped determine their outcomes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".