Queering Humanitarian Practices through the Inclusion of SOGIESC Concepts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diverse SOGIESC issues (sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and sex characteristics) are seldom discussed in humanitarian work but are emerging as an important gap to fill in both knowledge and practice. This review’s objective is to provide a clearer picture of how SOGIESC issues are included in humanitarian practices. A socio-ecological approach is used to identify the different settings in which these issues are present and should be addressed by the humanitarian sector. The review is based on a search of three databases covering peer-reviewed articles and grey literature that link SOGIESC issues and populations with humanitarian work. The fifty-one documents included in this review provide insights into its three main results. (1) SOGIESC concepts must be clarified in the humanitarian sector, which has been partially aware of these concepts and related issues. Two good governance principles should be prioritised and reviewed. (2) The inclusion of SOGIESC issues lacks clear ‘Direction’ (strategic planning) for the reduction of SOGIESC-based discrimination beyond short-term disaster management. (3) Diverse SOGIESC communities lack ‘legitimacy and voice’ to address their needs and participate in emergency responses. Transformative practices are identified to palliate those gaps but, most importantly, to connect humanitarian work to diverse SOGIESC peoples.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".