Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lanka remains a country in considerable political distress. The most visible and serious dimension of this is a continuing low-intensity civil war between the state and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), largely confined to the north and east but steadily moving south into the heartland of the Buddhist majority.1 This has exacerbated ethnic and religious tensions. The majority Sinhalese (15 million or 75 percent of the population) are largely Buddhist (and the armed forces of the state are almost totally Buddhist) , and the LTTE are at least in part culturally associated with Hinduism. Although the ethnic conflict should not be described in terms of a religious struggle (the LTTE have a secessionist political agenda and are not promoters of Hinduism), nonetheless the horrendous cost (68,000 deaths, one million people displaced, an economy that has not achieved its full potential) of more-or-less continuous civil war for 24 years (despite an ostensible cease-fire since February 2002) has intensified Buddhist nationalism and arguably made it more bellicose. It should be recognized that with over one million adherents each, Christianity and Islam are also major non-Buddhist faiths in Sri Lanka (Christians comprise about 7.5 percent of the population, Muslims 7.6 percent).2 The Islamic peoples (Ceylon Moors) have had their problems with Buddhist antipathy (e.g., antiMuslim riots in 1915, and current struggles to have a role in the political destiny of the contested Eastern Province) . But Islam is not marked with the stigma of the colonial experience, and has never had the political and social influence associated with Christianity. Further, Islam does not outwardly engage in mission proselytization in Sri Lanka and is no threat to the religious status quo or to Buddhist nationalism. Hinduism likewise appears politically quiescent, though this was not always the case.3 Yet today a religious situation
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".