Bibliographic record
Abstract
Party discipline is the impulse in a parliamentary system; when it falls short, the government typically falls. The forum of Indian politics undoubtedly suffers from countless practical disorders. The defection policy is one such species that involves gross miscarriage of equal actions that turns politics into a throne game (powers). In the womb of the British House of Commons, this tradition of political nomaditude can trace its seeds. Therein, if it was found that a legislator crossed the floor, the party considered him disloyal. In other words, by joining another party, the legislator lost his allegiance to his former party. In fact, this very phenomenon has two-way traffic, i.e. the ruling party to the opposition party or vice versa. Democracies such as the United States, Australia and Canada were also aware of this method of sharing loyalties. There have been many cases of great politicians, such as Winston Churchill, Ramsay McDonald, William Gladstone, etc., shifting party loyalty. Nevertheless, it is important to note that none of the democracies in the West ever chose or felt the need to legally prohibit defections, because of such a tradition of shifting party loyalty. Exceptionally, however, India can be traced to have passed anti-defection legislation. On the floor of the Indian Parliamentary system, the politics of defection had been a distinctive common practice steadily gulping the Federation's political nature and synchronization. This research, which seeks to analyze whether parliamentary democracy has lost its meaning due to democratic nomadism, is both empirical and doctrinal. In a democratic democracy, the present study also analyzes the classical as well as contemporary pulse of floor crossing amid dynastic politics. In view of the anti-defection statute, it will briefly address the panorama of defections under the Indian federal system and an effort has been made to add useful suggestions to streamline solutions for the still prevalent political defections.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.014 |
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".