MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032464812 · doi:10.3126/joia.v3i1.29085

Nepal-India Relations: Beyond Realist and Liberal Theoretical Prisms

2020· article· en· W3032464812 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Affairs · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSociopolitical Dynamics in Nepal
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International AffairsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRealpolitikSovereigntyInternational relationsIndependence (probability theory)HegemonyPolitical economyPoliticsNarrativeState (computer science)SociologyPolitical scienceInternational relations theoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking the historical narratives that tout Nepal-India relations as based on mutual respect of each other’s sovereignty as a point of departure, we provide a critical reflection upon the flaws of such a single uncritical discourse that not only risks the danger of creating stereotypes but also leaves it incomplete and misleading. Although many aspects of the Nepal-India relations indeed predate the origin of the modern nation-state, any historical discourse that downplays the realpolitik in these relations leaves the story untold about India being a hegemon interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs and obstructing Nepal’s social, economic and political progression. From a neocolonial lens, we provide snapshots of the ways and instances in which India has infringed upon Nepal’s sovereignty and independence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · 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