Official Secrecy, Self-censorship and Political Parallelism: A Study on the Bangladesh Press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThis article examines restrictions imposed on the press in the interest of Bangladesh security and public safety. It examines whether restrictions imposed by the laws and regulations seeking to protect State interests are reasonably justified in a democracy or not. It also examines how these laws inhibit the media's quest to serve roles expected of them in a democracy. This article delineates inherited colonial regulations, the constitutional provisions related to the freedom of the press and its reasonable restrictions, oath of secrecy and defamation. This study also looks at partisan divisions and self-censorship in the press, official secrecy legislation and the proposed Right to Information Act. Additional informationNotes on contributorsAbul Mansur AhmedAbul Mansur Ahmed is Associate Professor in the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. He received his PhD in 2006 in communication from York University, Toronto, Canada and MPhil in 1999 in Media, Democracy & Development from University of Oslo, Norway.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".