Narrative Ideology and Repercussions: Representation of the Kashmir Conflict in Modern Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research aims to explore the Kashmir conflict that has fractured the lives of the Kashmiri people. In the current times, the Kashmir conflict has been remarkably engaging literate circles all over the world. The conflict has been in the news worldwide for the last three decades because it may cause modern-day warfare betweenIndia, Pakistan, and China. Hence, people all over the world want to know about the situation in the region. The historical, sociological, and moral approaches by Wilbur Stewart Scott are used to grasp the context of the selected novelsThe Collaborator (2012) and Book of Gold Leaves (2015). Mirza Waheed, as an eyewitness, sketched the novels on the sufferings of Kashmiris, engaging daily with a god of death because of the conflictual situation. This situation has been routined since the invasion and occupation of the land by the three nuclear armament-holding neighbors, India, Pakistan, and China, immediately after the emancipation of the first two from their British colonial masters in 1947. The political scenario of Jammu and Kashmir became murkier in 1988 and onwards when India intensified its military operations to quell the armed resistance movement for “Azadi” (freedom) of land. The modern Kashmiri literature roots out the sentiment of freedom; India gave impunity to any draconian tactics in the name of rules that justified any inhuman treatment of custodial killing, torture, rape, etc. As a result, more than three lac women are dead, approximately 10000 are missing, and thousands are languishing in jails.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".