MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404375376 · doi:10.26443/mjgh.v13i1.1357

Humanitarian Response by NGOs to the 2010 Haiti Earthquake: Expectations vs. Realities

2024· article· en· W4404375376 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Soleil Belony

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Global Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitarian aidPolitical scienceSeismologyDevelopment economicsGeologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rising interest and participation from high-income countries in global health initiatives has been driven by increasing visibility and opportunities such as volunteering with non-profit organizations to provide healthcare. Thus, there must be a conscious effort to avoid further ingraining structures of inequality present in global health. This is particularly important in the context of Haiti’s post-earthquake recovery and the role of international aid. This paper examines the impact of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) on healthcare and maternal mortality in post-earthquake Haiti. Before the 2010 earthquake, Haiti was known as the “Republic of NGOs,” yet the INGOs’ interventions often proved ineffective. The wake of the earthquake provided an opportunity for progress but resulting efforts from INGOs fell short of expectations. Abuse of power, the exclusion of Haitian-led NGOs from funding, and inefficient project implementation further hindered progress in Haitian healthcare. This paper calls for ethical and equitable partnerships, Haitian-led development, and a shift toward self-sufficiency in international aid initiatives. In conclusion, this paper recommends aligning initiatives with host communities’ needs, as well as exploring innovative changes to the healthcare system that most effectively meet Haiti’s global health 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Global HealthSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207