Muslim Demand for Territorial Autonomy in the Eastern Sri Lanka: An Analysis of Its Origin, Accommodation and the Present Stance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since Sri Lankan ethnic conflict was considered as a confrontation between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils, the impact of conflict and civil war on other [minority] ethnic groups has always been sidetracked by major parties involved in resolving conflict. One of the communities severely impacted but always forgotten in the discourse of resolution process is the Muslims who ever resorted to violent agitations and arm rebellion to resolve their problem and achieve their political objectives. However, the constant impact of ethnic conflict and civil war on the lives and livelihoods of the community caused them to search for political and institutional mechanism to protect them. Muslim autonomy demand has emerged on this backdrop in the middle of 1980s and has been advocated by Muslim parties and public in the discourse of ethnic politics in Sri Lanka. There has been changing dynamics, phases of acceleration and sidetracks on the advocacy of the demand. This paper aims to examine the changing dynamics of the Muslim demand for territorial autonomy in the eastern part of Sri Lanka. The study was conducted using both primary and secondary data collected from desk analysis and field survey conducted in three years. Analysis of the study is interpretive and descriptive in nature. Findings reveal that the fragmentation of Muslims politics, demerge of north-eastern province, and the new political context in eastern Sri Lanka not only caused to sidetrack the demand but also made the demand politically contested and irrelevant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".