Gender and its Intersections in Localisation of Humanitarian Action since the World Humanitarian Summit of 2016 : The Case of Oxfam Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While both localisation and gender were major topics at the World Humanitarian Summit of 2016, they have largely been considered in isolation. Yet, the underlying issue in both cases are power inequalities, which this research seeks to highlight through an intersectional feminist perspective. Based on a qualitative case study on Oxfam Canada, this research thus aims to understand how social locations based on gender and their intersections with other social locations are integrated into Oxfam Canada’s discussions around a feminist approach to localisation. Based on a thematic analysis, this paper evaluates the main proposition that Oxfam Canada’s feminist approach to localisation is largely based on a conceptualisation of gender as a binary and as an isolated category. This was largely confirmed by the empirical findings that revealed that Oxfam Canada’s focus clearly lies on “local” (presumably cis-gender heterosexual) women. Nevertheless, the empirical analysis also showed burgeoning aspects of intersectional feminist perspectives such as the focus on power analyses that at times span across different levels (i.e. household, community, societal, and global), their emphasis on the importance of acknowledging their own positionality, as well as their commitments to coherence between their objectives and ways of working.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it