Religious Peace building, the Problems, and Potentials Now and in the Foreseeable Federal Republic of Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is debate whether most Nepali people still want Nepal to be a Hindu state. A significant number of opinions wish to see the country as secular, where people are respected with dignity without any discrimination where people can profess, practice, and protect their religions, whichever religion it may be. Methods: This paper is based on public opinion surveys through interviews and discussions with100 individuals, including key informant interviews with 25 religious leaders from different religions conducted between September 20019 and February 2020 and secondary data from various literature reviews. Results: The paper's finding reveals that the public's preference toward the Hindu state is not accepted in all sub-national levels; a secular state preference is evident in some of the sub-national levels, which cannot be undervalued. The mindsets of most of the elder populations interviewed still want Nepal to be the only Hindu state in the world, whereas the active young-age (youth) population is more inclusive and is happy with the secular nation. Conclusion: Understanding and implementing inclusive secular policies and practicing the preexistence principles of religious freedom by the political parties and incorporating the same in all government, semi-government and private sectors will ensure a secular and peaceful Nepal. Government authorities and other bureaucrats becoming more sensitive towards religious issues will create space for promoting peace.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".