THE PUBLISHING RELATIONS WITH LITHUANIAN COMMUNISTS IN THE USA IN 1920–1940
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The connection between the Lithuanian Communist Party (LCP) and their partners in the USA were quite widely researched before 1990, but for different reasons it wasn’t objective. The same thing can be said about publishing relations. This article is written using the material from the LCP archives and might be considered as an attempt to look differently at this problem.There are three main domainsof this connection. First of all, there was the cooperation in the publishing of periodicals. LCP and Lithuanian communists in the USA exchanged articles, LCP was constantly indicating the directionthat the press of Lithuanian communists in the USA had to follow, how to organize its printing. The second domain was book publishing. The manuscripts of communist’s books were sent to the USA, the local communists were told which books should be published and which shouldn’t, what their structure should be like. The third domain of above-mentioned connection was exchange of literature. The press printed in the USA was sent to Lithuania and the Soviet Union, to the leaders of LCP and the press printed by communists in the Soviet Union was sent to the USA. Lithuanian communists of the USA also helped LCP to make publishing contacts with Lithuanian communists in Canada and South America. All these relations promoted the obedience of Lithuanian communists of the USA to the Commintern policy and their approval to the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in 1940.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".