MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056496934 · doi:10.5539/ass.v9n7p173

Institutional Influence in Pakistan: Bureaucracy, Cabinet and Parliament

2013· article· en· W2056496934 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahboob Ul Hussain, Rizwan Ullah Kokab

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCabinet (room)ParliamentBureaucracyPublic administrationPolitical scienceState (computer science)Power (physics)LawPoliticsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the mutual relationship of some important institutions of the state of Pakistan; the institutions of bureaucracy, cabinet, chief executive and the parliament. It observes the domination of the one over the other. The discussion covers the period from 1947 to 1977. The analysis highlights the strong domination of Chief Executive over the bureaucracy and cabinet. The paper then examines the power and influence of the parliament which were weaker than those of bureaucracy and cabinet. The findings have been made through the analysis of the events, the quotations from some reliable research works, statements of various key leaders and debates in the Assemblies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207