Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to Sarawak state elections, in the 2022 general election (GE15) the incumbent Sarawak Parties Alliance (Gabungan Parti Sarawak, GPS) and Sarawak-based opposition parties' campaigns demonstrated a tendency toward a moderate rather than radical autonomy discourse. In GE15, these candidates attempted to reconcile their regionalism with nationalism to stay relevant in the national political landscape. Meanwhile, opposition parties performed better in certain Chinese- and Dayak-majority seats, exposing the limits of the Sarawak autonomy discourse. To explain these patterns, this article locates Sarawak against the backdrop of a centralized Malaysian federal government to clarify the salience of both structural and cultural factors in shaping autonomy claims. It shows the importance of inclusive and democratic institutions, like a general election, in integrating peripheral communities and checking radical regionalism. Further, preceding the general election, the readiness of the federal government to delegate power to the state government effectively secured the state ruling elite's commitment to remain in the national government. However, institutional decentralization is insufficient to calm autonomy claims, as cultural pluralism increasingly underpins Sarawak regionalism. Sarawak's autonomy discourse will not fade away and could radicalize again if the central government holds to exclusive ethnoreligious nationalism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".