Bibliographic record
Abstract
Of late, various constitutional issues come to the surface and become the subject of debate among the society members be it in the social media or in the printed or electronic media. Issues like the position of Malay Kings, the special rights of Malays, Islam and Malay Language are often debated. This debate is something that sparks an interest because the public begins to pay attention to the content of the constitution. Although sometimes the debate does not truly convey the actual meaning of constitution, the public is beginning to like talking about the constitution that, all this while, is difficult to grasp and which appears to only be understood by lawyers or those reading law only. Thus, it is advisable to start socialising the constitution. The concept of socialising the constitution means that the community has to be exposed with the constitution not only from the legislative aspect alone but also from the historical, cultural, religious, political and ethnic relations aspects. This is stated by the Reid Commission Report that stresses on how important it is for the constitution to take into account the factors of history, tradition, economy and social that existed in 1957.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".