Researching the Resolution of Post-Disaster Displacement: Reflections from Haiti and the Philippines
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
Researching the resolution of post-disaster displacement raises a range of under-examined challenges. This article contributes to the literature on research methods and forced migration by analysing experiences conducting two policy research projects that employed a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the pursuit of ‘durable solutions’ to post-disaster displacement in Haiti and the Philippines. Many scholars are highly critical of how policy concepts and categories have sometimes unthinkingly shaped research on displacement, but the views of policy researchers and researcher-practitioners are under-represented in this conversation. This article seeks to advance discussions on the relationship between research, policy and practice in the field of forced migration by reflecting on efforts to undertake thoughtful policy research on durable solutions while making the very notion of durable solutions and tools such as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons central objects of investigation. In particular, it explores four key issues: the structure of policy research partnerships; implications of different approaches to conceptualizing displacement and durable solutions; the challenge of understanding displacement and durable solutions in relation to broader and pre-disaster politics, conditions and concerns; and the timing of studies on durable solutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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