‘They Are Still Not Gone Even Though They Are No Longer Here’: What Community Members and Local Stakeholders Valued in How Organisations Closed Humanitarian Assistance Projects in Six Locales in the Philippines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initiated in response to crises, humanitarian projects are intended to be limited in duration and closed once the situation stabilises. There has been discussion about humanitarian organisations’ responsibilities and accountability in how projects are closed. How these processes are viewed by individuals living in communities affected by humanitarian crises has received less attention. We conducted a qualitative study to explore perceptions and experiences of people living in six communities in the Philippines where humanitarian projects were closed. We worked with an Advisory Board and conducted interviews and focus groups with community members and local stakeholders. There were between nine and thirty-one participants per community, totalling 101 participants overall. We analysed the data using constant comparative techniques and identified elements of project closure that were especially valued by participants: transparency of plans and processes, collaboration with local leaders, participation of community members, sustainability, continuity and monitoring, fairness and preservation of relationships, and preparedness. Foregrounding community perspectives shifts the focus from organisational departure to the ongoing concerns and realities for people living in these communities and how they experience processes of crisis response and recovery. It can help identify opportunities to enhance people-centred approaches to humanitarian aid during and beyond the closure of projects.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".