Chasing the Caux Guiding Principles: Assessing their Legacy on Monitoring and Evaluation of Media Assistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post conflict societies offer an opportunity to reform and democratize media, as part of peace building and democratization.Since the 1990s, nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations have provided assistance to local media in societies emerging from conflicts.This thesis explores the concept of monitoring and evaluation of media assistance in conflict and post conflict settings.Only when properly assessing the assistance can we understand if and how it has an impact on peace building and democratization.The thesis' case study is the Caux Conference, which assembled key actors and resulted in eight principles, the Caux Guiding Principles, providing advice on how to improve the sector.I interviewed six of the thirty participants to find out if the conference has had an impact and if the principles are being applied.The research suggests that the Caux Conference did not have a substantive direct impact, but that some of the principles have been applied.
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 | 0.236 | 0.330 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".