When development cooperation principles clash: Country ownership and LGBTQI+ inclusion in hostile environments
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".