The Policy of the Popular Front of the Cominter in the Assessments of Modern English-Speaking Historians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of assessments by modern English-speaking historians of the tactics of the Popular Fronts, which were implemented in 1934-1939. The article presents the assessments of historians who adhere to the traditionalist and revisionist paradigm. The novelty of the work lies in the fact that for the first time these assessments of the tactics of the Popular Front by modern English-speaking historians are combined in one study. The article presents the works of historians from Great Britain, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. According to the “traditionalists”, the repressions greatly weakened the national communist parties; the poor awareness of the leaders of the Third International about the political situation in a particular region also most often contributed to the fact that, as a result of decisions from Moscow, the local Communist Party lost demand among the masses. “Revisionists” come to the conclusion that in 1935-1939. at the level of individual countries and regions, issues of unemployment, racial character, protection of workers' rights, etc. quite often and successfully resolved with the participation of the communists, mainly in alliances with the socialists and social democrats; it is also impossible not to note the creation of a number of international organizations and, in general, the popularity of communism not only among the workers, but also among the intelligentsia, which also arose due to the fact that the activities of the communists were quite large-scale and creative.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".