Bibliographic record
Abstract
In what ways, if any, do development workers practice solidarity? In-depth interviews with 42 current and former workers for the Canadian federal development agency reveal that emotions are important factors in how solidarity is enacted and where it breaks down. Almost all the interviewees described feelings of frustration and reward in their development work, but whether these emotions contribute solidarity is contingent on the extent to which these workers identify with their partners. The more they identify, the more they push for the development outcomes they believe will best serve their partners, often despite Canadian political priorities. However, the conflict between Canadian and development interests can lead to burnout, especially for women, who are more likely to challenge the organization—and to face professional hurdles as a result. In contrast, workers who see themselves as primarily accountable to Canadians experience less frustration and easier career paths. For this group, the reward of “doing good” becomes an additional source of privilege that further separates them from development partners. The case of Canadian development workers highlights the challenges of solidarity as an elusive yet important development ethic and sheds light on broader questions of how solidarity can challenge privilege to redress inequalities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".