MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392287677 · doi:10.1177/00207020241234208

Moving from gender responsive to gender transformative action: What Canada achieved and missed in its Rohingya response strategy in Bangladesh

2024· article· en· W4392287677 on OpenAlexaffabout
D Banerjee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentGender mainstreamingBengaliGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceEconomic growthGender studiesRefugeeTransformative learningAction (physics)PovertyGender equalitySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2018, Canada, through its Rohingya Response Strategy in Bangladesh, has been providing targeted assistance to the impoverished Bengali host communities and Rohingya refugees living in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. Under Canada's Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), gender equality and gender-responsive humanitarian action constitute some of the core priority areas for the Canadian government. In Cox's Bazar, Global Affairs Canada (GAC) funds programmes to empower women and girls through skill-based and livelihood training and to provide sexual and reproductive health services. However, scholars like Jennifer Cadesky and Rebecca Tiessen caution against the conflation of gender equality and empowerment, arguing that it often leads to short-term, quick-fix solutions without any long-term benefit to women. Canada needs to go beyond funding recovery assistance programmes at a surface level. Without understanding social norms and cultural practices that influence women's participation, mobility, and visibility in public spaces, gender equality in Canada's response strategy will be limited to only checklist goals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicAsian Geopolitics and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207