Fit for purpose? Assessing the accessibility, theory of action, and accountability of digital technology interventions for sexual and gender-based violence prevention and response
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
This paper presents the results of a scoping review of Information and Communications Technologies for Development (ICT4D) interventions designed to address sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). Our analysis considers the extent to which these ICT4D interventions align with established strategies for preventing and responding to SGBV from gender equality and global health practitioner communities. Using a feminist lens, we propose three parameters against which design features of digitally-based SGBV interventions should be assessed: (1) accessibility, (2) theory of action, and (3) accountability. Reading the intervention landscape through these parameters, our results indicate that ICT interventions to address SGBV deploy creative use of various technologies, from mapping software to social networks and document storage. That said, we also find significant scope for improving the accessibility of existing interventions through use of features that remove literacy barriers. Our findings around the accountability of interventions highlight the need for far greater engagement with emerging conceptualizations of data rights. Finally, we show that existing theories of action are only partially aligned with “offline” best practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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