Relationships Matter Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief in Haiti
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AT 16:53 LOCAL time on 12 January 2010, a catastrophic 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti, killing over 230,000 people, injuring thousands of others, and leaving over a million people homeless.1 The earthquake caused major damage to the capital and other cities in the region and severely damaged or destroyed notable landmarks, including the presidential palace and the Port-au-Prince cathedral. The temblor destroyed 14 of the 16 government ministries, killing numerous government employees. The headquarters of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) collapsed, killing 101 UN workers, including Head of Mission Hedi Annabi from Tunisia and his principal deputy, Luiz Carlos da Costa from Brazil.2 In less than a minute, life on the small island of Haiti drastically changed. The earthquake prompted offers to send aid and assistance in various forms from governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private foundations.The need for manpower on the ground to orchestrate the relief effort brought together military forces from the world over, to include the United States, which stood up Joint Task Force-Haiti (JTF-H). The combined effort of MINUSTAH and JTF-H in providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Haiti following the earthquake demonstrates the importance of developing strong relationships, both institutional and personal, with partner nation armies. U.S. and Partner Nation Militaries: A History of Cooperation Eighteen contributing nations make up the military component of the UN mission in Haiti.3 These nations include Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, India, Jordan, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, the United States, and Uruguay. The United States has a long and distinguished history of partnership and cooperation conducting full spectrum operations with various partner nations. Three notable examples include offensive operations during the Italian Campaign in World War II, humanitarian assistance during the 1965 civil war in the Dominican Republic, and peacekeeping operations in Ecuador and Peru in 1995. Brazil was the only South American country to send troops to fight in World War II. They formed a 25,000-man Brazilian Expeditionary Force (FEB) made up of Army, Air Force, and Navy personnel led by General Mascarenhas de Moraes. The FEB 's 1 st Division, under General Zenobio da Costa, consisted of three regimental combat teams that fought alongside the U.S. Fifth Army under the command of Lieutenant General Mark Clark in the Italian Campaign. The highlight of Brazil-U.S. cooperation came in February 1945 when Brazil's 1st Division and the U.S. 10th Mountain Division fought sideby-side in the Battle of Monte Castelo against the German Army under extremely adverse winter conditions. The 10th Mountain Division, supported by Brazilian artillery and the FEB's 1st Fighter Squadron, captured German defenses surrounding Monte Castelo, allowing the Brazil 1st Division to attack the German forces on higher ground and successfully take control of Monte Castelo itself. Later in the campaign, the FEB also distinguished itself by capturing over 20,000 German and Italian prisoners to help end hostilities in Italy. By the end of the war, over 900 FEB soldiers had paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives.4 The 1965 civil war in the Dominican Republic led to another cooperative effort between the United States and several Latin American countries. The XVIII Airborne Corps headquarters was activated on 26 April 1965 and three battalions from the 3d Brigade, 82d Airborne Division, deployed on 30 April and landed at San Isidro Airfield. After intense fighting that day, a cease-fire was established and the paratroopers soon transitioned to peacekeeping and stabilization efforts distributing food, water, and medicine to the residents of San Isidro. A fourth battalion from the 82d's 1st Brigade joined the other three on 3 May. …
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".