Deconstructing the concept of camp governance toward practice-based theory building on post-disaster relocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article posits a simple, yet provocative, argument: post-disaster relocation sites are camps characterized by “incompleteness” where multiple actors seek to govern. The discursive framing of relocation sites as long-term solutions where residents are safe from natural hazards and integrate into their new communities suggests that relocation sites are not camps. Within these camp spaces, diverse actors attempt sometimes competing, sometimes complementary, forms of governance. Conceptualizing post-disaster relocation sites as camps allows us to scrutinize the governing practices that shape socio-spatial relations and subjectivities of disaster-affected people long after a “solution” to their initial displacement has supposedly been attained. By privileging the notion of “incompleteness” over “finishedness,” we better understand the tangible and invisible forces that inflect disaster recovery efforts, on one hand, and the regulations, negotiations, and resistances that transpire within these post-disaster spaces, on the other. Drawing on empirical studies of relocation sites in the Philippines and Japan, we examine camp governance. We deploy three conceptual filters—politics of loss, spatial forms and practices, and resistance—to study the assemblages of rules that shape life in resettlement sites, the unrecognized modes of meaning-making, the affects entangled in socio-spatial practices and encounters with material forms, and the resistances to prescribed “ways to live.” Such analyses explain why relocation sites are camps, and what are the implications of obscuring this conceptualization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".