Advocate or Expert:In Search of an Alternative to "We versus They" Mentality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author interrogates the "we-versus-they mentality" which divides refugee advocates from hosting governments and their representatives. The author demonstrates how this bifurcation operates in the context of the NGO Doctors of the World. Physicians and mental health professionals provide volunteer services, assessing and documenting evidence of torture and maltreatment. The author argues that there is a misconception amongst government representatives that the documentation is not objective, and that the NGO advocates on behalf of its clients irrespective of whether the applicant is a genuine torture survivor. This misperception assumes that experts cannot also be advocates, and denies what is in fact a shared goal between refugee advocates and government representatives, that is, that those who have a well-founded fear of persecution receive adequate protection. Only recognizing this shared goal will break down the "we-versus-they" mentality.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".