A Dignified Approach: Legal Empowerment and Justice for Human Rights Violations in Protracted Refugee Situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the concept of legal empowerment has gained significant traction in development studies recently as a means of addressing social inequality, exclusion and human rights violations, little scholarship exists on its potential in the context of protracted refugee situations (PRS). This article seeks to further the discussion on the role of law and justice in PRS by proposing that legal empowerment- based approaches offer an alternative to traditional aid initiatives which respects the dignity and agency of recipients. It is argued here that enabling refugees to use the law and legal mechanisms to protect and advance their rights and acquire greater control over their lives could have important implications. In particular, legal empowerment has the potential to improve the administration of justice within refugee camps, to increase the accountability of host state authorities and aid providers, and to contribute to the achievement of durable solutions either by providing the skills and knowledge to facilitate resettlement or local integration or by empowering refugees to be actors in resettlement and transitional justice initiatives.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".