Views, events, and debates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we are profiling the highly respected and highly influential organisation, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era, better known as DAWN. For over a quarter of a century DAWN has researched and advocated on economic and gender justice in the South in the face of globalisation, and ever-more polarised degrees of wealth and poverty across the globe. In 1987, DAWN authors Gita Sen and Caren Grown published their groundbreaking book, Development Crises and Alternative Visions, which remains a fixture on gender and development studies reading lists everywhere A lot of readers will be familiar with the work of Women in Development Europe (WIDE) and may well have attended one or more of their dynamic and inspiring annual conferences, a regular date in the calendar for many of us. Hit by a funding crisis last year, WIDE is now regrouping, and here Wendy Harcourt, WIDE Chair from 2004 to 2008, talks about the network as it plans for the future
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".