Development and Dynamics of State Administration in Indonesia: The Struggle of the Discourse of the “State” Administration vis a vis the “Public” Administration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since Woodrow Wilson “stirred up” the United States public through his writing entitled The Study of Administration (1887) in the journal Political Science Quarterly, state administration began to develop to worldwide, including to Indonesia. Since the 1990s, the state administration has grown considerably compared to Wilson's time. It cannot be denied that the development of State Administration Science is so massive in its home country of the United States and other Anglo-Saxon countries such as England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. While in developing countries, the dynamics of State Administration is not so intense because there is still strong political, bureaucratic and cultural control. The concept of “State Administration” is not “public administration” for a while until the author can accept the logic thinking (epistemology) of Public Administration as the mainstream science of State Administration in Indonesia today. In theory, concepts and paradigms, state administration is experiencing a fairly rapid development. Many contemporary theories have emerged in the repertoire of State Administration that criticize and enrich classical theories such as theories about Organization and bureaucracy. That development is something natural considering that state administration is part of the social sciences that have dynamic characteristics, unlike the Natural Sciences which tend to be passive and positivistic. This development should be appreciated because it indicates that the state administration is able to exist in the midst of increasingly complex community problems and needs concrete solutions.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it