“Russians Worship Intelligence” (220th Anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences in the Perception of a Canadian Scientist)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perception of the celebration of the 220th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences (June 15–30, 1945) by Harold Innis, a Canadian scientist, was discussed. The focus of the study is the “Russian Diary” that H. Innis kept during his long journey from Ottawa to Moscow, Leningrad, and back. The diary was published in Canada 35 years after the anniversary celebration. Professor William Christian of the University of Guelph was the publisher, editor, and author of the opening letter. The motivation of H. Innis to study Russia, as well as the interlocutors, informants, and places of memory that shaped his vision of Russia as a “mysterious country” were analyzed. The specifics of his narrative (brief and telegraphic sketches of the surroundings with complex associations) were considered. His peculiar way of description and perception of the anniversary celebration was investigated. It was concluded that H. Innis paid little attention to the ceremonial part of the anniversary, because something else was more important to him. He was more interested in understanding the role of science in the USSR and in the modern world. The restoration of the academic relations disturbed by the war was perceived by H. Innis as an important step towards overcoming the civilizational crisis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".