Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the New Order regime, most political scientists working on Indonesia focused primarily on the intricacies of “behind-the-scenes” politics in Jakarta. They analyzed the competition for power, resources, and representation around President Suharto, his generals, and a small clique of the regime's clients. They considered that the rest of the political elite jockeyed for influence and protection from this group, while few openly resisted. Jakarta was the uncontested center of rule, where decisions, directives, orders, and commands originated. Localities, regions, and provinces of this large archipelago were at the receiving end of a pyramidal hierarchy with Suharto at its apex. Few insights could be gained, therefore, from studying them. While these political scientists were largely correct in their assessments of New Order Indonesia, they left out some important dimensions of politics. Virtually no centralized, authoritarian political system can boast of commanding full authority and control over its subjects. Pockets of resistance appear in the elite as well as the broader society. While analyses focusing on the political elite captured such resistance in Jakarta, they ignored the signs of resistance occurring in various areas of the archipelago. For sure, the coup de grâce of the regime in 1998 would come from cracks in the elite, but the full mobilization against Suharto, and the subsequent political instability, were revealing. The scale of riots, demonstrations, and ethnic and religious conflicts displayed an array of grievances that had been little detected in previous years.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.335 | 0.173 |
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".