Collaborative Governance for Sustainable Development in Nepal: Lessons from Large-Scale Infrastructure Projects
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 study investigates the role of collaborative governance in promoting sustainable development in Nepal by analyzing two large-scale infrastructure projects: a prominent hydropower company and a major water supply project. Using thematic analysis, the study involved coding, categorization, and theme identification through twelve interviews with key stakeholders. The findings highlight significant gaps in the governance structures of these projects, particularly in terms of resilience, equality, and well-being. Despite achieving technical success, both projects failed to adequately address broader social and environmental goals, leading to the marginalization of local communities and a decline in their well-being. The study is limited to these two projects and does not account for governance frameworks in other sectors or smaller-scale projects. Future research could expand by studying additional infrastructure projects or comparing governance practices in similar economies, thereby enhancing the potential to generalize the findings. The study addresses equity and inclusivity in collaborative governance for infrastructure development a relatively underexplored area in Nepal, emphasizing the importance of inclusive and equitable governance frameworks to achieve sustainable growth in underdeveloped economies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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