MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

At the heart of the conflict: irredentism and Kashmir

2005· book-chapter· en· W18887656 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen M. Saideman

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth Asian Studies and Conflicts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRivalryPoliticsPolitical economyPolitical scienceResistance (ecology)Development economicsLawSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The enduring conflict between India and Pakistan may be moving towards a period of détente. The leaders of both countries met at the outset of 2004, essentially agreeing that the Kashmir conflict should be handled peacefully. This might be a cause of great optimism. One of the key sources of conflict in their relationship – Pakistan's irredentism and India's resistance – may be declining. However, at the same time, there have been repeated efforts to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf by forces that oppose moderation. The simultaneity of these two sets of events is suggestive – that there are grave domestic costs for making peace, and that Musharraf, if sincere, may be following Anwar Sadat more closely than he would like. This brings us to a key shortcoming of the enduring rivalry literature – domestic politics matters but is undertheorized. That is, domestic politics seems to do a lot of the work of causing, prolonging, and ending rivalries, but most scholars in this debate treat it in an ad hoc fashion. By focusing on the largely domestic dynamics that drive irredentism, we can get a better idea of under what conditions many rivalries will begin, worsen, and perhaps even end. Not all enduring rivalries have irredentism as a core dynamic, but many do, including the Koreas, Somalia and Ethiopia, and China and Taiwan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.020
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicSouth Asian Studies and ConflictsFrench-language works237,207