Democratization and Decentralization in Post-Soeharto Indonesia: Understanding Transition Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998, following Soeharto's demise, Indonesia underwent a transition from authoritarian rule amidst much anticipation but no small amoun of concern.1 Thankfully, in the intervening years, it has now become th world's third largest democracy.2 Yet, how and why the archipelago's democratic institutions became established and accepted remain difficu questions to answer. Indeed, some influential commentators voice legitimate concern about oligarchic reorganization within the new framework of democratic institutions.3 They see the ability of Soeharto-era predato interests to secure new political allies as, effectively, emasculating institution and policy reform.4 From this perspective, there has been a hijacking of the consolidation process. Highlighting these trends is an undoubtedly important task. But is it accurate to conclude that the kind of democracy establishing itself is more akin to a re-instatement of powerful constellations of state and politico-business oligarchs through new institutions? Arriving at such a conclusion would seem to rely too heavily on understanding transition dynamics as a causally contingent struggle between salient socio-economic forces.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".