Election and Development in Federal Nepal: Perspective of APF in Election Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free and fair elections are the elements that contribute in strengthening the democracy. They are more important for the fragile democracies like Nepal. The new constitution promulgated in 2015 by Constituent Assembly led the country to federal state. Elections of all three tiers of government were to be held within two years from the date of promulgation. The constitution granted a number of tasks to be performed by local bodies for the development of the country. Elections and development are interrelated and connected. Elections elect candidates and those candidates are the vehicle of development. But the first year passed by without doing much and later government had to execute the task within the period of eight months. Local elections were planned and held in three phases due to security reason, whereas, provincial and federal elections were completed in two phases. All security forces mobilized in duty performed their duty well and elections went on peacefully except some petty incident in some parts of the country. This article is centered on the security provision of election and a long-term security plan. It needs to be prioritized by the government, as the security situation deteriorates further each day. Anti-election elements, agitating groups attempting to achieve their rights, lack of law and order, and banditry are just some of the security challenges Nepal is currently facing, and affects the ability to hold free and fair elections. Consequently, security is integral and inseparable part of an election and electoral process. The study concluded that the security agencies were proactive, capable of providing security to the political leaders, candidates and voters perform their functions effectively and peacefully during legislative elections 2017.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".