Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1980s, many developing countries have introduced decentralization polices in varying forms and to various degrees. Philosophically, decentralization has been linked with the improvement of governmental performance as well as with the increased participation of people in decision-making processes. But while decentralization has some generic benefits, analysis of its diverse processes needs to be contextually specific. With this view, the present paper explores the dynamics of decentralization in the context of Bangladesh from 1982 to 2001. Against the backdrop of sweeping political and economic changes at the national level, we examine the underlying processes driving local government reforms during the period. The paper argues that the restoration of democracy in 1991, contrary to expectations, was insignificant with regard to the introduction of decentralization reforms based on devolution and participation and that, in fact, the military government in power between 1982 and 1990 implemented the most wide-ranging changes in the structure of local governments. The authoritarian regime's decentralization policies can be explained by its increasing search for legitimacy and its need to create a rural power base; whereas reforms undertaken by both “democratic” governments in the 1990s were characterized by a tendency to maintain the status quo—and in some cases were actually retrogressive.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".