Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanitarian action is the active provision of aid designed to save lives, alleviate suffering, and restore and promote human dignity in the wake of disasters and during large-scale emergencies. The humanitarian action that is the focus of this entry is the Dunantist tradition of humanitarianism that adheres to the humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, and independence. In its current form, humanitarian action is enshrined in international humanitarian law and provided by intergovernmental organizations and international nongovernmental organizations. Bioethical issues are numerous and profound. Humanitarian action constantly negotiates between a minimalist and secondary morality, struggling to save lives but also to further human dignity among adversity and animosity. It challenges current arrangements of power and demonstrates an ethic of refusal. The work can be dangerous and aid workers and the populations they aim to serve face resource scarcity, tragic choices, and physical and psychological traumas. Humanitarian organizations struggle to find an ethical foothold under neoliberal globalization, so as to fulfill humanitarian objectives without reinforcing a global economic system that makes life so precarious for so many. While humanitarian action is context specific, it remains a coherent and collective expression of compassion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.021 |
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".