Gender data for good? Partnerships between tech companies and humanitarian and development organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013, the United Nations called for a “Data Revolution” to advance sustainable development. “Data for Good” initiatives that have followed bring together development and humanitarian actors with technology companies. Few studies have examined the composition of Data for Good partnerships or assessed the uptake and use of the data they generate. We help fill this gap with a case study of Meta's (then Facebook) Survey on Gender Equality at Home, which reached over half a million Facebook users in more than 200 countries. The survey was developed in partnership with international development and humanitarian organizations. Our study is uniquely informed by our involvement in this partnership: we contributed subject matter expertise to the development of the survey and advised on dissemination strategies for the resulting data, which we also analyzed in our own academic work. We complement this autoethnographic perspective with insights from scholars of partnerships for development, and a practitioner framework to understand the factors connecting data to action. We find that including multiple partners can widen the scope of a project such that it gains breadth but loses depth. In addition, while it is (somewhat) possible to quantify the impact of a Data for Good partnership in terms of data use, “goodness” can also be assessed in terms of the process of producing data. Specifically, collaborations between organizations with different interests and resources may be of significant social value, particularly when they learn from one another—even if such goodness is harder to quantify.
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 | 0.029 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".