Conflict between Groups of Different Religion and Beliefs Posing as Threat to Heterogeneity in Indonesia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the 1998 political reform in Indonesia, conflicts between groups of different religions and beliefs continued to occur, regardless of the fact that attempts to bolster diversity have been carried out legally and formally by the government and the political elites. In view of such condition, this research attempts to disclose conflicts which increasingly pose dangers on national heterogeneity, various factors which create religious-based conflicts, the roles of government and political elites in handling such conflicts and the communication strategy adopted to establish a civilized heterogenous society. The research methodology is qualitative with its main focus on online data related with conflicts in Indonesia. Online data processing was performed to support the description of conflicts based on religions and beliefs in all its forms which potentially threat national unity in Indonesia. The findings of this research are as follows: Increasing frequency of conflicts, powerplay politics as fuel for conflicts, unoptimized roles of the government and political elites and lack of communication strategy substance between groups by those responsible for public security and welfare.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it