MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805443161 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v11n2p88

An Empirical Survey on Factors Affecting Citizens’ Trust in Public Institutions in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka

2018· article· en· W2805443161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Rameez, M. A. M. Fowsar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecentralizationSri lankaFocus groupGovernment (linguistics)DemocracyPoliticsCorporate governancePolitical sciencePublic institutionPublic relationsPublic administrationSurvey data collectionEconomic growthSocioeconomicsBusinessSociologyMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although Sri Lanka made attempts to adopt policies of decentralization and democratic governance to enhance citizens’ trust, the efforts had yielded very little success. As such, this study attempts to assess the level of citizens’ trust in public institutions in the eastern province of Sri Lanka and explores the factors contributing to the decline of citizens’ trust in public institutions. Both qualitative and quantitative methods consisting of questionnaire survey, in-depth-interview and focus group discussion as data collection techniques were employed in this study. Overall, it was found that the people have little trust in the public institutions due to lack of awareness, discrimination in terms of ethnicity, undue delay, lack of modern facilities and political influence. Thus, it is paramount on the part of government to address these challenges to restore the trust among the citizens on these public institutions.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207