Bibliographic record
Abstract
The creation of Pakistan was the result of Islamic ideology. The Muslims were demanding a separate homeland where they would apply the teachings of Islam. Following Pakistan’s establishment, the principles of Islam were included in the constitution-making process in the form of an Objective Resolution. The Constitutions of 1956, 1962, and 1973 were all based solely on Islamic principles. Any laws that were considered to be anti-Islam were firmly rejected by the public at large, resulting in severe agitation. When the socialist Pakistan People’s Party tried to re-emerge in Pakistan’s political arena in 1977, Islamic ideology proved to be a binding force against PPP, prompting the formation of the Pakistan National Alliance. In 1988, the socialist PPP returned to Pakistani politics, and supporters of Islamic ideology, including the military, government, and religious political parties, formed an alliance against her, forming Islami Jamhuri Ittehad. IJI took part in elections but did not win the support of the voters. Now the question is why IJI, Pakistan’s largest religious-political alliance, was unable to defeat the PPP, a single political party. What were the reasons behind its failure? How the PPP dealt with opposition strategies in elections, including the President, Military, and IJI? What were the real causes of PPP’s success in the elections? The answers of these question are the real motive of this research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.978 | 0.978 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".