Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Since its inception in 1993, Cambodian democracy has struggled to muddle through like other unconsolidated democracies,2 in which elements of democracy, such as liberal constitutions and free and fair elections, mix with authoritarian and traditional practices, such as a lack of rule of law, rampant corruption, widespread patronage and executive usurpation of power.3 This paper investigates why Cambodian democracy has failed to consolidate, approaching question by juxtaposing state and society rather than focusing exclusively, as most analyses heretofore have done, on political elites. Much of literature on democratic consolidation emphasizes role of political elites. Elite behaviour and interactions, collectively termed political culture, certainly play an indispensable role in process of democratic consolidation, because democracy would not function without elites' acceptance of regularity and predictability of the rules, and limit of constitutional system and legitimacy of opposing actors who similarly commit themselves... .4 The significance of elite political culture in process of democratic consolidation, Larry Diamond argues, is twofold: first, elites' political decisions are contingent on their beliefs; second, as leaders of a polity, magnitude of their impact on political events is high.5 The role of elites, especially their consensus on legitimacy of democratic institutions and rules, is crucial to process of democratic
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".