Assesments by modern english-speaking historians of the policy of the comintern in Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the modern English-language historiography on the policies of the Communist International in Asia. English-speaking countries have been chosen because a significant number of studies devoted both directly to the tactics of the Comintern in relation to Asia and the activities of its sections in this region are published in the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and India. This topic has been infused with fresh relevance thanks to the opening of funds in the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) that concern, among other things, the activities of Asian communist parties. These newly available documents present an opportunity for scholars to rethink some issues, such as the policies of Asian communist parties: what was the influence of the Comintern on their tactics? What was the nature of this influence? What role did national and colonial questions play in the policy of the Comintern, and what were the results of their implementation? This article demonstrates that the traditionalist approach to the analysis of the activities of the Comintern and its policies toward specific nations, which took shape before and during the Cold War, is still significantly represented in English-language historiography. However, the final approval of a new approach (“revisionist”) contributed to a certain correction of existing trends: the article contains assessments of both the negative and positive influence of the Comintern on individual communist parties and on the political situation in the given country or region.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".