КУЛЬТУРНА ДИПЛОМАТІЯ ЛЕМКІВСЬКИХ ОРГАНІЗАЦІЙ У ДІАСПОРІ В ДРУГІЙ ПОЛОВИНІ ХХ-го СТОЛІТТЯ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the attempt to comprehensively analyze the features of the Lemko cultural diplomacy during 1940–1980s, when, in the conditions of their own statehood absence, there was left the only opportunity for the Lemko’s ethnic identity promotion abroad. It has been found out that the coordinating center for the Lemko organization cultural activities on the American continent was carried out by the Research Institute of Lemkivshchyna in America in 1976. The analysis has convincingly demonstrated the effectiveness of cultural diplomacy, which was implemented by representatives of the Lemko organizations in the United States and Canada. Its purpose was to promote the history and culture of the Rusyn-Ukrainians in the Western world, as well as protect the values of ethnic uniqueness and Ukrainian unity from the communist propaganda media attacks. The diversity of practicies used by the Lemkos comprised the following: the publishing activity of the scientific and cultural (the collection of works by B. I. Antonych, the Lemkivshchyna magazine, the two-volume encyclopedic edition «Lemkivshchyna: earth-people-history-culture») and propaganda (for example, a series of the English-language publications aimed at informing the Western world about the Lemkos forced eviction from their native lands during the first post-war years) content, museum activity (first of all, the Ukrainian Lemko Museum in Stanford), picketing of diplomatic establishments in Poland and the Soviet Union with a massive media involvement. The abovementioned activity made it possible to preserve the cultural identity of the Lemko migrants in a globalized Western world and establish their unity with the Ukrainians. The prospective continuation of this research presents the need for a holistic study of the XXth century foreign Ukrainians cultural diplomacy phenomenon.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.013 |
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".