IDP perspectives on IDP participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Participation is a humanitarian mantra and a mainstay in development discourse. Some important steps have recently been taken to strengthen meaningful and effective refugee participation, including through refugee-led organizations. Although more than half of those displaced by conflict and violence worldwide are uprooted within their own countries, progress in supporting participation opportunities for internally displaced persons (IDPs) has been more limited. This Field Reflection aims to advance conversations on participation in the context of internal displacement and understanding of the important contributions of IDP-led organizations. It does so by drawing on the perspectives of IDP leaders and co-authors from Ukraine, Iraq, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Colombia and Honduras to address seven interconnected themes: (1) local, accountable approaches to enabling participation; (2) risks and challenges of working internally; (3) balancing IDP-specific and integrated approaches; (4) distinctive challenges associated with disaster contexts; (5) diversity and inclusion in IDP participation, including in relation to race, gender and sexuality; (6) mental health and IDP participation; and (7) the value of international solidarity among IDPs. The analysis emphasizes the need for decentralization and sustained resources to support IDP participation, as well as concrete steps to reduce insecurity. A balance must be achieved between participation processes that focus on IDPs and integrated, intersectional approaches that engage IDPs alongside others affected by conflict and disasters. Outstanding challenges include the integration of mental health concerns into participation processes to prevent burnout and fostering cross-border solidarity among IDP leaders to share experiences and strategies. These insights highlight the need for systemic changes to enhance IDP participation in policymaking, humanitarian response, and long-term development efforts.
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".