Standing Committees’ Responses in Promoting Peace, Justice and Strong Institution (SDG 16) at Local Level in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable development goals have incorporated all the aspects of our society. The proper achievement of these goals can be the redemption for the third world countries in terms of politics, society and economy. Goal 16 is introduced in order to promote peace and ensure an inclusive society. The targets and indicators of this goal more or less focus on ensuring effective, accountable and transparent institutes which conceal flexible, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making. On the other hand, the committee system of our local government has been designed exactly to pursue the same objectives as goal no 16. This study was conducted on three Union Parishads (Union Councils) of Rajshahi district and interviewed all the presiding members of Standing Committees. The study also considered the awareness of local residents in the question of activation and effectiveness of the standing committees. It used mostly qualitative data and the direct opinions of the respondents. A few quantitative data have been included as well. The study found our local representatives totally clueless about their committees and Union Parishads totally devoid of the committee practice. This study suspects that our local bodies will hardly be able to contribute anything at all to promoting peace, justice and strong institution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".