Building Democracy in South Asia: India, Nepal, Pakistan. By Maya Chadda. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000. 247p. $49.95 cloth, $19.95 paper.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Democracy is in vogue it seems. Everywhere in the world, the forces opposed to democracy seem to be in retreat, and the number of states calling themselves democracies is increas- ing. There are exceptions, of course: parts of Africa, tortured Burma, all over the Middle East, some aging Communist oligarchies, a few proud holdouts in sultanates and mountain monarchies. But they are increasingly anachronisms in the end-of-history world. Or are they? The literature is replete with controversy on the definition, durability, inevitably, and universality of democracy. Into this controversy comes a new book that takes direct aim at the literature of the past decades and provides a badly needed comparative analysis of some of the states in South Asia. Maya Chadda's goals are clear and ambitious: to bring the neglected experience of South Asia to the attention of a wider audience, in the context of the most central debates about the nature of democracy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.012 |
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".