Indivisibility of Accountability and Empowerment in Tackling Gender-Based Violence: Lessons from a Refugee Camp in Rwanda
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed by the capabilities approach and our own ethnographic research study conducted in collaboration with an international non-governmental organization that manages a Rwandan refugee camp, this article argues that accountability and empowerment play a dual and conditional relationship in human rights protection. On the one hand, accountability cannot be ensured when people lack the power to make their own choices and demand their rights; on the other hand, assurance of accountability and good governance is essential in empowering people and promoting their capabilities. Focusing on participants’ perspectives on the public health problem of gender-based violence, this article critiques the current accountability framework with its emphasis on transparent policy, surveillance mechanisms, and response to violations. Applying research participants’ experiences and suggestions, we expand the meaning of accountability to incorporate the capabilities approach in creating an accountability-enabling environment. This article argues that, in order to promote accountability with the aim of advancing the rights of women and girls, an empowering environment is needed that not only provides a formal process of holding perpetrators answerable for their actions but also enables people to demand their rights. The article ends by providing recommendations for agencies in furthering their work in promoting accountability and human rights.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it