American Soy in the USSR: the Transfer of the U.S. Agricultural Practices into the Soviet Economy During Détente
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article, based on previously unpublished documents from the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History (RGANI), examines the transfer of American ideas and practices to the USSR. The case study focuses on an expert memorandum submitted by the Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in 1976, addressing issues related to the production and use of soybeans in the Soviet Union. The research follows a constructivist approach, highlighting how the image of the United States as a technological leader became more prominent during Soviet economic reforms, and how American modernization practices were seen as a model to follow. The use of anthropological methods provides a detailed look on how Soviet officials viewed and implemented American ideas within their own economic system. Using cultural transfer theory and tracking the “life” of the memorandum within soviet bureaucratic practices, the author explores why some expert recommendations were set aside, while others were adopted. The study concludes that the success of American ideas, such as the “soy project”, depended on the support of influential officials and the ability to adapt these ideas within smaller, manageable modernization efforts that didn't require major changes to the Soviet economic structure.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it