Multi-Ethnic Society and Lack of Political Culture in Afghanistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethnic diversity and ethnic politics in Afghanistan overcome the common political culture that the nationalities have never been coherent regarding political decisions in the country. The only issue that led the nationalities to cohesiveness is religion as the common value and culture. Except for religion, the other commonalities do not highly influence the cohesiveness of the nationalities in Afghanistan. Thus, religion often brought together nationalities against foreign factors and withstanding interventions; however, concerning inner challenges and conflict, religion has never been a factor in diminishing and resolving inner conflict. The legitimacy of regimes and fair schemes for the welfare and the status quo change is not the fundamental issue for ethnicities in Afghanistan. Still, the extent of ethnic political participation in the government has often been considerable. The central government and centralised regime led to a big rift in the society and led to rivalry at any cost among the ethnicities to hold further political authority. The autocracy under the definition of Democracy, at least within the last 20 years in Afghanistan, one way or another, even changed the social norm among ethnicities that everyone, instead of feeling responsibility toward the government and national interest, focused on ethnic interests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".