When development cooperation principles clash: Country ownership and LGBTQI+ inclusion in hostile environments
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
Abstract In some instances, two basic development cooperation principles appear to be in direct contradiction: on the one hand, the Sustainable Development Goals prescribe universal social inclusion under the leitmotif of “leave no one behind”, mandating an emphasis on the most marginalized. On the other hand, the cornerstone of development cooperation is “ownership”, which recognizes that countries must be free to choose their own priorities and strategies. To what extent can these two principles be reconciled in “hostile environments”, places where certain groups, such as LGBTQI+ people, are marginalized and even persecuted and criminalized? I argue that, while the SDGs are clear about the need for radical inclusion, the ownership principle lacks precision about who “owns” the concept. Adopting an emancipatory conceptualization of ownership, under which the ultimate beneficiaries should be the ones to determine priorities and strategies, eliminates the apparent contradiction and legitimizes support to marginalized groups even if their own governments disagree.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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