Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition of Nepal's Maoist insurgency into a peaceful democratic process in 2006 has been one of the most remarkable developments in the history of efforts to resolve communist rebellions. Peaceful resolutions of insurgencies are not entirely new in South Asia. The Tamil, Punjabi, and Assam separatist movements in India and the Sindhi agitation for identity assertion in Pakistan are other examples. However, the case of a left extremist insurgency joining hands with bourgeoisie parties to resolve a 10-year-old violent conflict has rarely been seen. Yet, the Maoists of Nepal transformed their violent People's War and agreed to confront the monarchist state through peaceful civil agitation in alliance with the established mainstream political parties. The People's Movement, or Jana Andolan II , launched by the mainstream parties and the Maoists against the monarchy, was ultimately the product of various forces coming together in reaction to the royal coup of February 2005. The alliance between the Maoists and the mainstream parties was also greatly facilitated and influenced by the international community, especially India. In this role, India gradually changed its position from that of supporting the monarchy against the Maoist insurgency to favoring an alliance between the Maoists and the political parties to marginalize the monarchy. In doing so, India acted indirectly but in concert with other members of the international community and, through the Nepali players, nudging them to forge alliances, mobilize people, and carry the People's Movement to its conclusion. This chapter critically examines the shift in India's position in response to rapidly unfolding developments in Nepal, particularly after 2005.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".