A Bibliographic Survey on State-Minority Contestations in Post-Colonial Sri Lanka
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an extensive body of literature that delves deeply into the question of how a state is constituted, by examining it from various theoretical and empirical perspectives. Scholars engaged in the field of political science, as well as in other fields such as the social sciences, are constantly endeavouring to explain the myriad ways in which states are formed in different regions of the world. According to one set of academics, the social setup that prevailed in most of the post-colonial states of Asia, Africa, and Latin America was mainly due to the plurality of their multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, and multi-cultural populations. This plurality had a profound effect on the way the state was formed. A significant volume of literature on Sri Lanka too is available, much of which approaches the question of state formation and reconstitution from the standpoint of ethnicity and nationalism. This survey reviews both the theoretical and empirical literature on state constitution/ formation and pays special attention to three main themes; viz. theories on state constitution (formation), research on post-colonial state formation, and studies about Sri Lankan politics. The state-in-society theory is studied with focus on the crucial question of how state and society transform and constitute one another. This is a qualitative study based on text analysis. A wide selection of existing literature was reviewed. This survey shows that there is a paucity of research work on post-colonial state formation in Sri Lanka and state-minority contestations. It also draws attention to the research gaps in existing literature and the need to explore them further.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.051 | 0.137 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".