Intergovernmental relations and the territorial management of ethnic diversity in India
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
This article examines how and to what extent ethnic diversity underpinned intergovernmental relations (IGR) in deeply divided societies like India. Central to this is the vertical and intermediating roles of political actors, structures and processes of Indian federalism in defining the ways in which ethnic diversity is territorially managed. Unlike Canada or Belgium which have more formal and robust structures of IGR, the inconsequential roles of formal structures of IGR in India unduly leverage centralizing actors, structures and processes in the territorial management of ethnic diversity. Given that these centralizing actors, structures and processes are contingent on political expediency, the dynamic ideas, interests and strategies of centralizing and regionalist actors are particularly salient in defining not only the contours and outcomes of IGRs but also the ways in which “unity in diversity” are negotiated and balanced within the overarching framework of “self-rule and shared rule.”
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it