Data Don’t Lie: A Comparative Study of Nepal’s Development under Absolute Monarchy and Post-Monarchy Democratic Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correction: On 24/04/2025, the updated PDF was loaded because it was found that some of the figures were inadvertently repeated and misplaced. A widespread perception among the Nepalese people is that Nepal was in a better position in terms of development during the party-less Panchayat political system under the absolute monarchy from 1960 to 1990 than in the post-Panchayat democratic period after 1990. This article presents a comparative study of major development indexes during the Panchayat and post-Panchayat periods and aims to clarify the origins and reality of this perception. Data were obtained and analyzed using secondary global sources such as UNICEF, UNFPA, UNESCO, Education Statistics, World Bank, etc. Further comparison is made with corresponding Indian indexes for a better assessment of development after the emergence of globalization. The comparison shows that, contrary to the common perception, Nepal is in a much better development position in most of the indexes in the post-Panchayat democratic period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".