Development Actors and Protracted Refugee Situations: Progress, Challenges, Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the reception of “relief to development” approaches among development actors, and the headway those actors have made in addressing the socioeconomic, security and political dimensions of conflict. The paper’s main argument is that the role of development actors in conflict situations goes far beyond forging operational partnerships with relief actors. While efforts to strengthen linkages between relief and development support should be further strengthened, such partnerships offer only a starting point in efforts to bring development assistance to bear in achieving genuinely durable solutions. The role of development actors encompasses supporting overall efforts at conflict prevention, mitigation and post-conflict reconstruction. With reference to protracted refugee situations, this translates into ensuring that the specific needs of refugees are met and that they have access to the range of resources made available to local populations across development portfolios. The paper is structured as follows: First, it offers a review of approaches to development assistance in transition environments. Second, discusses the involvement of development actors in security, human rights and peace support activities. Third, it considers institutional barriers that impede effective interventions. Finally, it submits a set of policy suggestions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".