MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396230436 · doi:10.1080/14631369.2024.2347537

Democracy and ethnic autonomy: allies or rivals in Nepal?

2024· article· en· W4396230436 on OpenAlex
Hari Har Jnawali

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Ethnicity · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSociopolitical Dynamics in Nepal
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International AffairsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyAutonomyArgument (complex analysis)MainstreamPolitical sciencePolitical economyPoliticsConstitutionEthnic groupSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies suggest that the democratic system constructs a permissive environment for ethnic autonomy. This argument does not, however, fit in the case of Nepal in which the Constitution has institutionalized the democratic system and rejected the Madheshi autonomy. Nepal’s constitutional position makes it imperative to examine the limits of the democratic system to address ethnic ambitions. In response, this paper has examined the following question: How did the democratic political system affect the Madheshi demand for autonomy and self-determination? It identifies that the democratic system socialized the mainstream parties to consider that democracy supports individual rights and provides all citizens with equal opportunities. In contrast, self-determination gives additional privileges to some communities over others and hurts the citizens’ rights to equal treatment from the state. Due to this perception, the mainstream parties characterized self-determination as an undemocratic right and used numeric strength to refuse the Madheshi autonomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it