MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613249879 · doi:10.35536/lje.2002.v7.i1.a3

Using Theatre as a Research Tool: Troubleshooting andBenchmarking Pakistan's Devolution Plan

2002· article· en· W2613249879 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shahrukh Rafi Khan, Aasim Sajjad Akhtar

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œLahore journal of economics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersForeign Affairs and International Trade Canada
KeywordsGrassrootsDevolution (biology)BenchmarkingPublic administrationGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceService delivery frameworkService (business)SociologyManagementEconomicsLawPoliticsEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective One of the most key initiatives of the military government that assumed power in Pakistan in October 1999 is devolving power to the grassroots level.2 The elections for the lower three tiers, (Union, Tehsil and District) have taken place as has the elections for the pivotal post of the District Nazim (governor). Notwithstanding expressed reservations about the suspension of democracy, many civil society groups and donors, who had been advocating devolution or decentralisation in the past, hoped for the success of this initiative as one possible way for making effective the delivery of public service to the grassroots level. While others have undertaken benchmarking exercises to evaluate this initiative, it was thought that using theatre as a tool would be a unique method for complementing these other initiatives.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œLahore journal of economicsSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207