Political Disasters in Bangladesh and Affairs of the ‘State of Emergency- 2007’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On January 11, 2008 Bangladesh stepped into its second year under a ‘state of emergency’ with the army backed caretaker government reeling under a number of difficulties on the political and economic fronts. Although Bangladesh has been experiencing ‘state of emergencies’ since the Pakistan period the pattern of this ‘emergency’ is distinct one in nature. This is going to be the longest episode of ‘emergency’ the country experiencing with truncated fundamental rights. Before January 11, 2007 the political situation over a parliamentary election turned so chaotic that it called for such stern action. Major political parties, general citizens along with the civil society are now demanding the withdrawal of the ‘emergency’. This paper looks at the ground and outgrowth of the first year of the ‘state of emergency- 2007’. Key words: Bangladesh, state of emergency, ground and outgrowth Resume: Le 11 janvier 2008, la Bangladesh est entree dans la deuxieme annee sous un « etat d’urgence » avec l’armee qui soutien le gouvernement de gardien depasse par un tas de difficultes sur les fronts politique et economique. Bien que la Bangladesh a connu un « etat d’urgence » dans la periode pakistanaise, le modele de cette « urgence » est bien different par sa nature. Il va devenir l’episode d’urgence le plus long que le pays connait avec des droits fondamentaux tronques. Avant le 11 janvier 2007, la situation politique apres une election parlementaire s’avere si chaotique que le pays recourt a une telle action severe. Les partis politiques majeurs, les citoyens et la societe civile exigent maintenant la retraite de l’ « urgence». Le present article examine la raison et la consequence de la premiere annee de l’ « etat d’urgence - 2007» Mots-Cles: Bangladesh, etat d’urgence, raison et consequence
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".