MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Special Category States in the Framework of Asymmetrical Federalism in India

2016· book-chapter· en· W2486627032 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Govind Bhattacharjee

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth Asian Studies and Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses the special category states in the framework of asymmetrical federalism in India as embodied in the Articles 370 and 371 of Indian Constitution as well as the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to the Constitution. The chapter traces the origins of these schedules and discusses the volatile issue of tribal land alienation in India. Drawing from a large body of scholarly writings on asymmetrical federalism, this chapter critically examines the question of diversity in the Indian federation and the adequacy of asymmetrical powers to deal with such diversities as exhibited within the special category states, especially within the Northeast. It draws comparisons with other countries that too are facing large asymmetries in their federal structures, like Belgium, Canada, Spain and Malaysia, while examining the sufficiency of asymmetrical powers necessary for a federation as diverse and complex as India and concludes with a critical evaluation of de jure asymmetry of Indian federation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicSouth Asian Studies and ConflictsFrench-language works237,207