We can make things better for each other: Women and girls organize to reduce disasters in Central America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When considering disaster risk reduction, it is understandable that people focus on managing disasters and the hazards themselves. However, a focus on the development linkages is becoming increasingly common (UNDP 2004) and of particular value when considering the situation of women. Women are frequent contributors to community-based development projects and activities, encouraged in part by the insistence of donors that they should have an equal role. For example, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) lists equality between women and men as oen of its priorities, identifies it as a global issue and a cross-cutting theme throughout Canada’s development cooperation programming. The donor expectation that gender equality issues will be mainstreamed throughout programmes and projects helps overcome any local resistance. While gender equality within global development initiatives has clearly gained recognition, it has not yet been universally realised. However, in the disaster management or risk reduction field, gender equality issues are even less visible, despite significant individual examples (Disaster Watch [www.disasterwatch.net]; Gender and Disaster Network [www.gdonline.org]; see UNISDR 2007).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".