Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this volume we have attempted to give full attention to the many difficulties and dilemmas that characterize development by displacement. Identifying and recognizing the dynamic, distinguishing its constitutive elements, and attempting to address the situation are difficult tasks. The challenge is made all the more daunting by the impasse we have described between two of the main camps into which those who have recognized displacement seem to fall – those of the ‘managerial’ and those of the ‘movementist’ positions. Such characterizations are necessarily reductive and often the result of the heated and passionate rhetoric inflamed by the debates on development-induced displacement. We must recognize that of course not all managerialists would insist on development at all costs, much as not all movementists would necessarily insist on a halt to all development on general principle. Indeed, in Chapter 2 we examined in detail just how this polarized set of positions has emerged in the world of development and why this trajectory has led to the current untenable situation. What we have argued in this volume is that an approach rooted in development ethics is a productive way of starting to bridge the gap between movementist and managerial concerns. We have spent much of the preceding chapters examining the roots of the development and displacement dilemma and laying the theoretical foundation for an ethical response to it.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".