The Parliamentary Committee System in Bangladesh : An Analysis of its Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is s study on parliamentary committee system of Bangladesh. Drawing a theoretical framework this study examines how committee system works in a parliament where the political institutions, at least partly, have been imposed from outside rather than being fully indigenous. Though many favorable preconditions were adopted in the Constitution of Bangladesh, parliamentary system of government could not successfully work in the initial years of the independence. The political government was eliminated quickly through a bloody military coup in 1975. After the collapse of the military-authoritarian government, Bangladesh embarked upon a new democratic journey in 1990. Since the restoration of the parliamentary system of the government in 1991, committees have been serving as the extended working arms of the parliament. This study examines the pattern of performances of committees in the post-1990 parliaments. Examining the different dimensions of the working of committees, this study finds that they are now better poised to conduct their legislative and overseeing tasks. However, the absence of democratic principles within the party structure discourages the legislators from being proactive in the committees. Analyzing the committee structures and procedure of the selected developed and developing countries, it explores the lessons that Bangladesh can learn from them to make the committee system more effective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".