MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046139453 · doi:10.1080/14631369.2020.1799750

Voting behaviour in deeply divided societies: partisanship and ethnic voting in the hills of Manipur

2020· article· en· W3046139453 on OpenAlex
Thongkholal Haokip

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

VenueAsian Ethnicity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth Asian Studies and Conflicts
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVotingEthnic groupRepresentation (politics)DemocracyPolitical economyPolitical sciencePoliticsSalience (neuroscience)SociologyLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voting patterns in the hills of Manipur show high ethnic voting indicating extremely partisan attachments. The salience of ethnicity in voting preference is reinforced by conflicts in the past. Periodic elections only exacerbated such divisions through partisan mobilisation and competition for representation along ethnic lines. Cross-ethnic voting is prevalent among groups wherein cousinage alliance cannot be forged due to past conflicts. The neck and neck competition for political representation among ethnic groups has sidelined the democratic rights of individuals over partisan group interests. In such deeply divided societies ensuring individual rights is the challenge of democratic governance, and the only viable solution to this pervasive problem appears to be a constitutional reform with the aim of having a more inclusive representation.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.239 · 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