The Punjab paradox: understanding the failures of Diaspora engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Punjabi Diaspora is one of the oldest of the ‘free’ Indian regional Diasporas with a history of over 125 years. Given this long history it would not be surprising to learn that it is economically, socially and politically well positioned in its host countries. Further, although globally dispersed, it is predominantly located in the three economically advanced countries of the USA, the UK and Canada, thereby enhancing its potential to play a significant role in homeland development. Yet despite this, compared to other regional Diasporas, it continues to have a troubled, almost Janus-type relationship, with the Punjab state. This is reflected in the lack of a constructive engagement between them, with both Diaspora communities and state governments continuing to make hollow promises. The paper explores the reasons behind the failure in developing a constructive engagement, focusing on the socio-economic characteristics of the Punjabi Diaspora and the nature of Punjab’s as well as India’s outreach policies. It is argued that recent trends in the evolution of overseas Punjabi communities and nature of the economic and political environment in Punjab act as formidable barriers towards building a partnership for development. It does seem paradoxical, especially in the context of current debates on the Diaspora-development nexus, that despite being once the most prosperous state in India with a rich and vibrant Diaspora, Punjab should still continue to slide down the economic league table of Indian states.
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 | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".