MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164830171 · doi:10.1504/ijmbs.2019.099723

Whose needs count in situations of forced displacement Revaluing older people and addressing their exclusion from research and humanitarian programmes

2019· article· en· W3164830171 on OpenAlexaff
Midori Kaga, Delphine Nakache

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Migration and Border Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisplaced personInvisibilityInclusion–exclusion principleDisplacement (psychology)Inclusion (mineral)Older peopleForced migrationPolitical scienceSocial exclusionInternally displaced personSociologyEconomic growthPublic relationsPsychologyGerontologyMedicineRefugeeGender studiesEconomicsComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older people remain one of the most neglected, invisible, and marginalised groups among displaced persons, which is in part due to ageist stereotypes that persist and permeate the humanitarian system. Using a theoretical framework grounded in the capabilities approach, this article examines urban/protracted situations of displacement in developing countries and highlights gaps in the limited knowledge and assistance to older displaced persons that must be bridged in order to break the vicious cycle between research and policy that continue to marginalise older persons from humanitarian responses. At the heart of the issue around older peoples' exclusion and invisibility is their lack of voice in decision-making processes and their capacity to contribute to improving the programmes and policies that directly impact them. The paper thus also argues for the meaningful inclusion of older displaced persons in decision-making processes around programmes that concern them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Migration and Border StudiesSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207