Bibliographic record
Abstract
Divergent opinions existed among the ish leadership about the fate of the organisation after the December 1933 meeting in Moscow. Ernst Wollweber interpreted the instructions as a downscaling of activities and a way for merging the ish with the itf.1 Adolf Shelley, on the other hand, regarded the instructions not as a masterplan for an amalgamation but a guide for developing the activities of the ish. In his mind, the ish sections and the revolutionary trade union opposition within the itf-affiliated unions were to be strengthened, and he therefore outlined a blueprint of actions to be taken in early 1934, see Table Shelley's basic idea was the adaption of a double strategy. In line with the December 1933 Resolution and the "Confidential instructions", focus was on strengthening the opposition within itf-affiliated unions, such as the nus in England, and 'reformist'-controlled ones, such as those in Brazil, Ireland and Mexico. However, in other countries, such as Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, and Scotland, the unions were to affiliate with the ish. The plan put a heavy focus on invigorating work in South and Central America; instructors were to be deployed to boost activities and to investigate the possibilities for organising Interclubs in Havana, Montevideo, Rosario, Santos, Valparaiso and Vera Cruz.3 Shelley's masterplan outlined the Interclubs as key nodes of agitation and propaganda. Therefore, he projected the establishment or reorganising of them in Antwerp, Barcelona, Bratislava, Cardiff, Constanza, Danzig (the existing one seems to have been closed in 1933), Durban, Narvik, New Orleans (the existing one was dysfunctional already in 19334), North and South Shields, Piraeus, Shanghai, Sydney (the existing one seems to have ceased operations in 1931/ 32), Thessaloniki, and Vancouver. There was only one practical
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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 teacher head, 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".