MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176521447 · doi:10.3138/utq.84.4.12

US–Soviet Antagonism and the “Indirect Propaganda” of Book Schemes in India in the 1950s

2015· article· en· W2176521447 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sarah Brouillette

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian History and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDemocracyFace (sociological concept)SubsidyPolitical sciencePolitical economyEconomic historySociologyHistoryLawSocial sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article addresses US perceptions of subsidized pro-Soviet books and periodicals in India in the 1950s and the way that pro-US book programs, intended to counter the Soviet initiative, imagined that they might help to strengthen the hold of liberal capitalist democracy in the face of the threat of Soviet influence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.021
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicIndian History and PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207