‘King's inheritors': understanding the ethnic discourse on the Rajbanshi as an indigenous community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise of ethnic struggles in various parts of the world, particularly in the post-colonial period, is an intriguing phenomenon. Having the consciousness of primordial origins, indigenous communities have pursued ethnic mobilizations along different lines in order to achieve the goals of social and economic uplift. This paper focuses on the Rajbanshi, one such community living in northeast India, as they offer an opportunity to study history and ethnic identity formation as the dynamics behind their current situation. From the standpoint of applied anthropology, processes of social change and activism intended to improve the lot of Rajbanshi communities are evaluated. Given their obscure origins, cultural diversity and divided political struggle, the Rajbanshi are far from achieving their goal of pursuing better lives. Strategies of Sanskritization and ‘sons-of-the-soil’ indigeneity have not reaped the desired results in terms of social and economic development. Furthermore, discourses rooted in immigrant-aboriginal binaries and theoretical dichotomies of primordialism–constructivism fail to make sense of this community's experience and are not helpful in guiding them toward meaningful and fruitful political and social change.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".