Mapping Canadian security aid with transnational human rights NGOs in Colombia (2003–2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than two decades, the mining sector in Colombia has enjoyed considerable support from Canadian governments despite its negative impacts on women, Indigenous and Afro-Colombians. Oddly, these same vulnerable groups of the Colombian population are the main beneficiaries of Canada’s support for peace, human rights and transitional justice in Colombia. Few studies have explored how human rights non-governmental organisations and Canadian governments navigate the contradictory character of Canadian diplomacy in extractive countries. In this regard, the work of Lawyers Without Borders Canada (LWBC), in collaboration with successive Canadian governments since 2003, represents an interesting case study of how a shared language around the security, development, business and human rights nexus allows contradictions to be ‘resolved’, while pursuing divergent objectives in terms of justice. Based on field interviews and documents obtained through access to information requests, this paper explores the strategic uses and interpretations of law among different actors involved in human rights issues through the lens of Canadian security aid in Colombia. In this paper, we provide theoretical and empirical insights into how the indeterminacy of human rights has allowed for rule of law initiatives to evolve in parallel with ongoing Canadian support for extractive projects in general.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".