MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981927408 · doi:10.1002/app5.289

Federalism or devolution of power? Sri Lanka's perspectives

2019· article· en· W2981927408 on OpenAlexaff
Ranjanee De Alwis

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia & the Pacific Policy Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsDigital Payment Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevolution (biology)DecentralizationFederalismPoliticsClientelismPolitical economyPolitical scienceBureaucracyDelegationCorporate governancePublic administrationDevelopment economicsEconomicsDemocracySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The concepts of decentralization and devolution are not new phenomena to Sri Lanka. Since Independence (1948), the processes of decentralization and devolution have taken place at a varying pace to address changes in local socio‐economic and political conditions. Nevertheless, effective decentralization, delegation, and devolution of political and administrative authority and responsibility have not yet evolved in Sri Lanka due to lack of political will and bureaucratic support, the dominance of central institutions, inadequate fiscal and human resources devolution, and political clientelism. In turn, lobbying groups and political leaders in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka continuously agitate for more powers through a federal system of government. This paper examines the federal system of government internationally with a focus on its implementation in the South Asia region. This paper argues that in a developing country context, federalism has not produced autonomous state governments and effective governance as expected by various lobbying groups.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia & the Pacific Policy StudiesSame topicAsian Geopolitics and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207