Strange but common bedfellows: The relationship between humanitarians and the military in developing psychosocial interventions for civilian populations affected by armed conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay analyses how the relationships between Cold War and post-Cold War politics, military psychiatry, humanitarian aid and mental health interventions in war and post-war contexts have transformed over time. It focuses on the restrictions imposed on humanitarian interventions and aid during the Cold War; the politics leading to the transfer of the PTSD diagnosis and its treatment from the military to civilian populations; humanitarian intervention campaigns in the post-Cold War era; and the development of psychosocial intervention programs and standards of care for civilian populations affected by armed conflict. Viewing these developments in their broader historical, political and social contexts reveals the politics behind mental health interventions conducted in countries and populations affected by warfare. In such militarized contexts, the work of NGOs providing assistance to people suffering from trauma-related health problems is far from neutral as it depends on the support of the military and plays an important role in the shaping of international politics and humanitarian aid programs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".