The meanings of ‘recovery’: grassroots perspectives from Colombia and Peru in the aftermath of the pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a critical reflection on the meaning of crisis recovery, as experienced from the grassroots. It draws insights from a programme of research with indigenous and campesino communities in Colombia and Peru, undertaken in the period following the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a flexible, qualitative approach, the teams engaged in broad-ranging discussions about people’s concerns and aspirations. These exchanges revealed how people’s pandemic stories were inherently interconnected with other, ongoing and everyday risks associated with conflict, marginalization, poverty, displacement and environmental degradation. They also underlined how misconceived it can be to view the pandemic experience as some form of break from ‘normality’, externalizing the notion of crisis in a way that fails to acknowledge the historic and structural roots of risk and vulnerability. On the other hand, we also saw how capacities for coping with the crisis were already embedded in communities, partly as a consequence of long-faced injustices, reflected for example in the resurgence of communal care and indigenous practices. These perspectives conveyed a conception of recovery not as a linear or individualized trajectory, but as a multifaceted collective process that seeks to confront the dynamics of ongoing risks and injustices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".