MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137990139 · doi:10.25071/1920-7336.37503

Policy Report on UNHCR’s Community Technology Access Program: Best Practices and Lessons Learned

2013· article· en· W2137990139 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueRefuge Canada s Journal on Refuge · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsChristie (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodAutonomyBusinessQuality (philosophy)Public relationsOrder (exchange)Economic growthPolitical scienceKnowledge managementComputer scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report gives an overview of UNHCR’s Community Technology Access (CTA) program, which aims to improve education and livelihood opportunities for displaced populations via technology. Th e paper analyzes the key findings of a comprehensive external evaluation of the program conducted in 2012. According to the evaluation, the areas of greatest positive impact for people of concern were in the enjoyment of basic rights to freedom of expression and information, in building relationships with the host community, and social networking. However, access to technology alone is not sufficient to achieve the goals of quality education and self-reliance. Therefore, the evaluation recommends developing strategic, contextualized education and livelihood content and tools in order to achieve the desired goals of learning, skills, and access to employment, as well as a reassessment of CTAs’ potential for operational and fiscal autonomy in different countries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it