Nuancing the double and triple nexus: analyzing the potential for unintended, negative consequences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International and national actors are increasingly calling for a double or triple nexus approach to humanitarian, development, and peace activities to improve the flexibility of programming, particularly in complex crises. The double or triple nexus approach can, however, also replicate or create new challenges. To avoid this, the double and triple nexus requires more nuance. We explore how the double and triple nexus raises concerns about (1) control and decision-making, (2) the potential to cause harm, and (3) impositions that create inefficiencies, aspects of the double and triple nexus that are rarely considered. As actors seek to integrate and align activities via double and triple nexus approaches, they must proactively set in place policies to avoid negative consequences through localization to avoid replicating unequal control and decision-making. To ensure ‘do no harm’ is upheld, actors must consider the pace and scale of double and triple nexus implementation. As actors tend to have specific capacities, double or triple nexus impositions may create inefficiencies in operationalization which coordination and collaboration can reduce with significant investment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it