Holidays and memorable dates as an instrument of the historical policy of the Baltic states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article addresses the relationship between the holiday calendar of the Baltic republics and the local politics of memory. Following the attainment of independence, the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia undertook a comprehensive revision of the Soviet holiday calendar, effectively eliminating all celebrations that were indirectly associated with the ideology of socialism. Concurrently, the Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian authorities employed the thesis of historical succession with regard to the interwar republics, restoring the 1930s calendar and incorporating several commemorative dates with an anti-Soviet and anti-Russian orientation. This act was designed to create a negative perception of the Sovietisation of the Baltic countries and to reinforce the image of victimhood for the states of the region during the Second World War. Nevertheless, there was no public consensus on the new calendar of commemorative dates (and consequently, on the state policy of memory itself). Conversely, the aforementioned theses were met with rejection by the majority of the Russian-speaking population of Latvia and Estonia, thereby exacerbating the ethno-linguistic divide within society, a process that was further compounded by historical factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".