From A Nation of Quarter-Humans to that of A Proud People: Technology Transfer and Nationalism in Indonesia (1951-1998)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of technology transfer programs took place after Indonesia became fully independent, from 1951 until the fall of the New Order (1998). This article unpacks the ways the authoritarian New Order government utilize nationalist discourses, reproduced in the postcolonial context. These programs were framed as an antithesis to the negative psycho-social aspects of Dutch colonialism as a mean of postcolonial national integration, and as a strategy to make Indonesia’s position more equal to the more developed countries. At the same time, the technology transfer programs relied heavily on the high capacity of the authoritarian state. This study asserts that New Order demonstrates a case of a high capacity authoritarian state that utilized the success of the technology transfer programs, along with nationalist discourses, to legitimize its power. This article expands on the arguments of the previous studies that focus on the strong capacity of the state in promoting the technology transfer. The previous studies tend to neglect the post-colonial context (including the reproduction of the discourses of nationalism) in technology transfer program.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".