Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Nepal's peace process will not be complete until the future of the two major forces that fought the war is resolved. The November 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) called for parallel processes of integrating and rehabilitating Maoist combatants and bringing the Nepalese Army (NA) under democratic control, as well as adjusting its size and making its composition more inclusive. These processes were not mapped out in detail, nor has there been significant progress on either. Members of the Maoist People's Liberation Army (PLA) have remained in cantonments since the end of 2006, and discussions over their future have made little headway. The NA dropped its “Royal” designation but has maintained its full conflict-era strength and, despite the introduction of a 2006 Army Act bringing it nominally under cabinet control, retains both day-to-day autonomy and a significant political role. The measures that need to be taken to resolve this impasse do not neatly fit standard international models. The peace deal emerged from a military stalemate, in which neither force had been defeated. This has reduced incentives to accept compromise and understandably led the Maoists to reject forcefully the imposition of typical disarmament, demobilization, and rehabilitation models. The NA and its political backers have similarly rejected the need for systematic security sector reform, arguing that the transition away from palace control is complete and that the NA's exclusive legitimacy should not be tarnished by equating it with former rebel fighters. Therefore reforming the security sector presents much more than a technical challenge.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".