Opposition in Hungary and Poland during the State-Socialist Period: An Attempt at Comparing and Mapping Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study is to describe the different political and social conditions of opposition activity in Hungary and Poland between 1956 and 1989, and to map the relations between the various opposition groups. It starts from the premise that after 1956 radically different political, economic, and social conditions developed in the two countries. While in Poland the situation was relatively favorable for opposition activity, in Hungary the possibilities were limited; and only in the late 1970s, and especially after the birth of the Polish Solidarity movement, did the scope for action increase. In this article, I argue that the political, ideological, and generational determinants of Hungarian opposition groups in Hungarian-Polish opposition relations have been decisive in their choice of Polish partners. Hungarian opposition groups contacted Polish groups whose worldview corresponded to their own as this aspect was more important to them than the oppositional attitude itself. The article points out that the East-Central European opposition movement was a transnational phenomenon—not only because the task of all oppositions was to formulate and represent responses and reactions to the socialist system but also because they converged and interacted through their internal relations, channels, and mutual interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".