Experience of using printed materials in British political struggle during election campaigns in the last quarter of the 19th and early 20th centuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В данной статье рассматривается опыт и практическое использование периодической литературы, полиграфической продукции и других видов политических материалов во время избирательных кампаний в местные и центральные органы власти в конце XIX — начале XX веков в Великобритании. Поднимаются спорные в историографии вопросы, связанные со временем начала широкого использования печатной продукции в крупномасштабной политической агитации. Проанализировано разнообразие источников, из которых материалы поступали в округа, а также информационный материал, изданный на местах. Исследован способ взаимодействия местных и национальных сфер в этом ключевом аспекте предвыборной битвы. Рассмотрено, как различные виды предвыборной литературы вводились в действие и использовались в предвыборных кампаниях в интересах привлечения электората различными политическими силами. Оценивается роль партийных агентов в выпуске прессы. Данный опыт интересен тем, что был принят на вооружение многими европейскими государствами, а сложившиеся тенденции во многом соответствуют реалиям сегодняшнего дня. The article examines the experience and practical use of periodical literature, printed products and other types of political materials during election campaigns for local and central authorities in the late 19thand early 20th centuries in Great Britain. It raises issues that remain controversial in historiography, related to the beginning of broad use of printed materials in large-scale political propaganda. We analyze the variety of sources bringing such materials from the capital, as well as information materials published locally. The paper also discusses the ways in which local and national campaigners interacted in this key arena of the electoral battle. It is examined how various types of campaign materials were introduced and used by various political forces, to attract more voters. We assess the role of party agents in press releases. This experience is relevant because it was later adopted by many European states, and the prevailing trends largely correspond to the realities of today.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".