Ethical Issues Arising in Humanitarian Work and Possible Responses to Them: Results from a Critical Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although humanitarian work is linked to ethical issues that are sometimes of concern, no review of the literature to date has described these issues and their possible responses. Following the method proposed by McCullough, Coverdale and Chervenak, a critical review of the literature was conducted to fill this gap in the existing literature. 83 articles were selected for analysis and a total of 25 units of meaning emerged, which were grouped into three broad categories of ethical issues: 1) subjective ethical experiences, 2) practical ethical problems, and 3) politics and power. In terms of possible responses to these issues, six articles propose responses that are either preventative or restorative in nature. In the end, although the corpus of texts studied is dominated by the often rich, sometimes anecdotal experiential experiences of field actors in humanitarian work, little empirical research has been conducted to date to identify the ethical issues related to this practice and the possible responses to them. Also, none of the proposed responses have been empirically tested to determine their relevance and effectiveness.
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 | 0.068 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".