Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malaysia held the ninth Sarawak state election on May 20, 2006. It has invited various issues such as native customary rights land development, fuel hike and Chief Minister successor issue. Barisan Nasional won 62 of the 71 seats. The result was seen as a shock because BN failed to maintain the big mandate given from the previous election which was 60 of the 62 seats contested. The opposition meanwhile won 9 seats, reflecting new voting attitudes among the voters. This article examines the election issues and their performance in the election. This article also discusses the factors that influenced the voting patterns and the implications in the future. It is drawn from a 14 days fieldwork since nomination day, throughout election campaign period and polling day in May 2006. Key words: Malaysia; State Elections; Voting Patterns; Election Issues; Electoral ResultsResume: La Malaisie a tenu la neuvieme election dans l'Etat de Sarawak le 20 mai 2006. Cela a cause des problemes divers, tels que les droits coutumiers de l'amenagement des terre, l'augmentation des prix de carburant et les successeurs du ministre en chef. Barisan Nasional a remporte 62 des 71 sieges. Le resultat a ete considere comme un choc, car BN n'a pas reussi a maintenir le grand mandat de l'election precedente, c'est-a-dire obtenir 60 des 62 sieges a pourvoir. Pendant ce temps, l'opposition a remporte 9 sieges, ce qui reflete les nouvelles attitudes de vote chez les electeurs. Cet article examine les problemes electoraux et leur performance dans l'election. Il explique egalement les facteurs qui ont influence les habitudes de vote et les implications dans l'avenir. Il est tire d'un travail de 14 jours sur le terrain depuis le jour de nomination, durant toute la periode de campagne electorale et le jour du scrutin en mai 2006.Mots-cles: Malaisie; elections de l'Etat; habitudes de vote; problemes electoraux; resultats electoraux
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".