Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reflects on the varied and complex dynamics faced by humanitarian agencies working in the Goma area during a six-week period from mid-July 1994, shortly after the exodus of an estimated 850,000 refugees fleeing Rwanda who settled in the vicinity of Goma town in eastern Zaire, until the end of August 1994, which marked the period when the emergency phase of the humanitarian action in support of this refugee population began to stabilize. It considers three main dynamics, which were salient at the time: (1) the speed and size of the emergency; (2) the political environment inside the camps; (3) the traumas affecting the humanitarian environment. It covers the period when the author was assigned to support the emergency response to the crisis, and so combines personal reflections with reviews of some of the academic critique of the response by the international community. The article identifies the action as being critical to the evolution of international humanitarian response over the following two decades and concludes with a reflection on some of the lessons learned.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".