MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3053157352 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v13n3p122

Constitution and Building of Nation-State in Malaysia

2020· article· en· W3053157352 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nazri Muslim, Wan Zulkifli Wan Hassan, Khairul Hamimah Mohammad Jodi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNation-buildingConstitutionEthnic groupState (computer science)Political scienceNational identityNation stateContext (archaeology)GlobalizationNational languageLawSociologyGeographyPoliticsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The building of a nation-state is very relevant to Malaysia in facing various challenges that take place especially in terms of the diverse cultures, languages, ethnic groups and religions. khususnya dari perspektif kepelbagaian culture, language, etnik dan religion. The building of nation-state stems from the existence of the nation and the nation produces a country. Nation-state is the formation of a country based on the process of national unity and consolidated by the bordering of certain territories as its identity. Malaysia comprising of the community of various ethnic groups has faced many challenges in the process of the building of the nation-state involving language, religion, globalisation and constitutional issues. In the context of Malaysia, the building of a nation-state refers to the people of various ethnicity who need to identify themselves with this country, speak in the national language, and support the constitution which is the highest law of the country containing the 'social contract' that needs to be understood in the effort to unite Malaysians. Thus, this article will analyse the role of the constitution as one of the main elements in the building of a nation-state in Malaysia.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicAsian Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207