Add missing UNHCR test docs (2,5,6,8,9,103,104,106,107)

annotation_data/unhcr_extractions/doc_103/raw/doc_103_direct_judged.jsonl

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "**GLOBAL COMMITMENTS**\n\n\nSeveral global commitments support refugee access to education and can be used for advocacy\npurposes. These include:\n\n\n  - \u0007The [1951 Convention on Refugees guarantees the right to education for refugees.](http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html)\n\n  - [Article 22 of the](http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf) **Convention on the Rights of the Child** secures the provision of education for\nrefugee children and access to national systems.\n\n  - **Sustainable Development Goal #4** _‘To ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong_\n_learning for all by 2030’_ policy documents, the [Incheon Declaration and the](https://en.unesco.org/world-education-forum-2015/incheon-declaration) **Framework for Action**,\ncommit to developing more inclusive, responsive and resilient education systems to meet the needs\nof children, youth and adults affected by conflict and crisis, including internally displaced persons and\nrefugees.\n\n\n  - \u0007UNHCR’s Division of International Protection has complementary [Education,](http://www.unhcr.org/5149ba349.html) [Child Protection and](http://www.unhcr.org/50f6cf0b9.pdf)\n[Sexual and Gender Based Violence Global](http://www.unhcr.org/4e1d5aba9.pdf) **Strategies** that provide a comprehensive protective\nframework for refugees, with a focus on children and youth.\n\n### **UNDERSTANDING OOSC AND CHILDREN AT-RISK**\n\n\n**UNHCR employs the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) definitions for OOSC:**\n\n\n\n1 Children who\nhave **no access**\nto education.\n\n\n\n2 Children who have\naccess to a school\nbut are **not enrolled** .\n\n\n\n3 Children who are\nenrolled in school\nbut **do not attend**\n**regularly** .\n\n\n\n4 Children who\nhave **dropped out**\nof school.\n\n\n\n**Depending on the context, the following groups**\n**of children may be particularly at risk:**\n\n\nè è \u0007Children engaged in child labour, including\ndomestic labour\n\n\nè è \u0007Children with disabilities\n\n\nè è \u0007Children who have experienced trauma\n\n\nè è \u0007Separated or unaccompanied children\n\n\nè è \u0007Orphans or children in child-headed or femaleheaded households\n\n\nè è \u0007Children associated with armed groups, or child\nsoldiers\n\n\nè è \u0007Children who are married, pregnant girls or\nyoung mothers\n\n\nè è \u0007Children who belong to minority groups\n\n\n\n**Refugee children and youth are often excluded**\n**from school due to:**\n\n\nè è \u0007Exclusionary legal or policy frameworks\n\n\nè è \u0007Missing identity-related documentation required\nfor school enrollment or examination eligibility\n\n\nè è \u0007Language barriers\n\n\nè è Being over-age\n\n\nè è \u0007Limited or insufficient number of schools\n\n\nè è \u0007Discrimination and bullying\n\n\nè è \u0007Gender attitudes\n\n\nè è \u0007Early pregnancy and/or marriage\n\n\nè è \u0007Poverty and child labour\n\n\n\nOUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN REFUGEE SETTINGS **2**\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "**GLOBAL COMMITMENTS**\n\n\nSeveral global commitments support refugee access to education and can be used for advocacy\npurposes. These include:\n\n\n  - \u0007The [1951 Convention on Refugees guarantees the right to education for refugees.](http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html)\n\n  - [Article 22 of the](http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf) **Convention on the Rights of the Child** secures the provision of education for\nrefugee children and access to national systems.\n\n  - **Sustainable Development Goal #4** _\u2018To ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong_\n_learning for all by 2030\u2019_ policy documents, the [Incheon Declaration and the](https://en.unesco.org/world-education-forum-2015/incheon-declaration) **Framework for Action**,\ncommit to developing more inclusive, responsive and resilient education systems to meet the needs\nof children, youth and adults affected by conflict and crisis, including internally displaced persons and\nrefugees.\n\n\n  - \u0007UNHCR\u2019s Division of International Protection has complementary [Education,](http://www.unhcr.org/5149ba349.html) [Child Protection and](http://www.unhcr.org/50f6cf0b9.pdf)\n[Sexual and Gender Based Violence Global](http://www.unhcr.org/4e1d5aba9.pdf) **Strategies** that provide a comprehensive protective\nframework for refugees, with a focus on children and youth.\n\n### **UNDERSTANDING OOSC AND CHILDREN AT-RISK**\n\n\n**UNHCR employs the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) definitions for OOSC:**\n\n\n\n1 Children who\nhave **no access**\nto education.\n\n\n\n2 Children who have\naccess to a school\nbut are **not enrolled** .\n\n\n\n3 Children who are\nenrolled in school\nbut **do not attend**\n**regularly** .\n\n\n\n4 Children who\nhave **dropped out**\nof school.\n\n\n\n**Depending on the context, the following groups**\n**of children may be particularly at risk:**\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Children engaged in child labour, including\ndomestic labour\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Children with disabilities\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Children who have experienced trauma\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Separated or unaccompanied children\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Orphans or children in child-headed or femaleheaded households\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Children associated with armed groups, or child\nsoldiers\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Children who are married, pregnant girls or\nyoung mothers\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Children who belong to minority groups\n\n\n\n**Refugee children and youth are often excluded**\n**from school due to:**\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Exclusionary legal or policy frameworks\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Missing identity-related documentation required\nfor school enrollment or examination eligibility\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Language barriers\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 Being over-age\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Limited or insufficient number of schools\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Discrimination and bullying\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Gender attitudes\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Early pregnancy and/or marriage\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Poverty and child labour\n\n\n\nOUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN REFUGEE SETTINGS **2**\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/21d56009-4207-3a77-92d2-4f4341d9d1bf/560be1049.pdf",
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "### **DATA AND ASSESSMENTS** **FOR OOSC**\n\nWhile significant progress has been made towards\nglobal OOSC enrolment targets since 2000,\nUNESCO’s Institute of Statistics (UIS) reports the\ndecline in OOSC figures has slowed since 2005.\nGlobal data from 2014 suggests that 58 million\nchildren between the ages of 6 and 11 years and\n63 million adolescents between the ages of 12\nand 15 years do not have access to education. [2] If\ncurrent trends continue, 43% of OOSC – 15 million\ngirls and 10 million boys – are likely to never enroll\nin school. [3] Furthermore, **over one-third of the**\n**world’s out-of-school primary aged population**\n**lives in conflict-affected states** . [4] Children affected\nby conflict are more likely to be displaced either in\ntheir home countries or as refugees, which has a\ndirect effect on school attendance and completion.\nRefugee children are not included in global\nstatistics, though UNHCR continues to advocate for\ntheir inclusion.\n\n\nRefugee children have unique educational needs.\nJoint assessments conducted with government\nand education partners will clarify real, rather than\nperceived, reasons refugee children and youth may\nbe out of school, and establish strategic approaches\nto addressing their needs. It is possible to generally\ncalculate refugee participation in educational\nprogramming through enrolment data provided\nby partners, but **it is critical to conduct an**\n**assessment to understand the specific barriers**\n**refugee OOSC face in each displacement**\n**context.**\n\n\nAssessments should be **inclusive** and ensure\nconsideration of all children regardless of age,\ngender, or disability, and should capture a **range**\n**of ages** that include early childhood to tertiary\neducation needs. Assessments should adopt both\n**quantitative and qualitative** methodologies,\nincluding surveys, key informant interviews and\nfocus group discussions. Assessment teams\nshould be comprised of both **men and women**,\nand also include **the refugee community** from\n\n\n2 http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_61659.html.\n\n\n3 http://goo.gl/HgSlIq (2014).\n\n\n\nplanning through results stages. Staff or partners\nconducting assessments should be guided to\nfacilitate discussions that do not raise unrealistic\nexpectations of communities.\n\n#### **Assessment tools**\n\nè è **ProGres:** UNHCR’s registration database\n_proGres_ provides age and gender\ndisaggregated data for registered refugees\nof all ages. It is important that registration\nteams capture educational history (last school\ngrade level completed; highest education\nqualification), and that age-and gendersegregated data is pulled from _proGres_ to\ncalculate possible Net Enrolment Rates (NER),\nGross Enrolment Rates (GER), and the likely\nnumber of over-aged children who require\nprimary school access. Comparing existing\nenrolment data to registration data can also\nprovide a preliminary OOSC estimate.\n\n\n\n4 UNESCO (2015). _EFA Global Monitoring Report: Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements and Challenges_ . Paris: UNESCO.\n\n\nOUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN REFUGEE SETTINGS **3**\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "### **DATA AND ASSESSMENTS** **FOR OOSC**\n\nWhile significant progress has been made towards\nglobal OOSC enrolment targets since 2000,\nUNESCO\u2019s Institute of Statistics (UIS) reports the\ndecline in OOSC figures has slowed since 2005.\nGlobal data from 2014 suggests that 58 million\nchildren between the ages of 6 and 11 years and\n63 million adolescents between the ages of 12\nand 15 years do not have access to education. [2] If\ncurrent trends continue, 43% of OOSC \u2013 15 million\ngirls and 10 million boys \u2013 are likely to never enroll\nin school. [3] Furthermore, **over one-third of the**\n**world\u2019s out-of-school primary aged population**\n**lives in conflict-affected states** . [4] Children affected\nby conflict are more likely to be displaced either in\ntheir home countries or as refugees, which has a\ndirect effect on school attendance and completion.\nRefugee children are not included in global\nstatistics, though UNHCR continues to advocate for\ntheir inclusion.\n\n\nRefugee children have unique educational needs.\nJoint assessments conducted with government\nand education partners will clarify real, rather than\nperceived, reasons refugee children and youth may\nbe out of school, and establish strategic approaches\nto addressing their needs. It is possible to generally\ncalculate refugee participation in educational\nprogramming through enrolment data provided\nby partners, but **it is critical to conduct an**\n**assessment to understand the specific barriers**\n**refugee OOSC face in each displacement**\n**context.**\n\n\nAssessments should be **inclusive** and ensure\nconsideration of all children regardless of age,\ngender, or disability, and should capture a **range**\n**of ages** that include early childhood to tertiary\neducation needs. Assessments should adopt both\n**quantitative and qualitative** methodologies,\nincluding surveys, key informant interviews and\nfocus group discussions. Assessment teams\nshould be comprised of both **men and women**,\nand also include **the refugee community** from\n\n\n2 http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_61659.html.\n\n\n3 http://goo.gl/HgSlIq (2014).\n\n\n\nplanning through results stages. Staff or partners\nconducting assessments should be guided to\nfacilitate discussions that do not raise unrealistic\nexpectations of communities.\n\n#### **Assessment tools**\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 **ProGres:** UNHCR\u2019s registration database\n_proGres_ provides age and gender\ndisaggregated data for registered refugees\nof all ages. It is important that registration\nteams capture educational history (last school\ngrade level completed; highest education\nqualification), and that age-and gendersegregated data is pulled from _proGres_ to\ncalculate possible Net Enrolment Rates (NER),\nGross Enrolment Rates (GER), and the likely\nnumber of over-aged children who require\nprimary school access. Comparing existing\nenrolment data to registration data can also\nprovide a preliminary OOSC estimate.\n\n\n\n4 UNESCO (2015). _EFA Global Monitoring Report: Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements and Challenges_ . Paris: UNESCO.\n\n\nOUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN REFUGEE SETTINGS **3**\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [
       {
         "dataset_name": {
@@ -221,29 +221,6 @@
         "reference_population": null,
         "is_used": "False",
         "usage_context": "supporting"
-      },
-      {
-        "dataset_name": {
-          "text": "current trends continue",
-          "confidence": 1,
-          "start": 414,
-          "end": 437
-        },
-        "dataset_tag": "named",
-        "source": "human",
-        "annotator": "rafamacalaba",
-        "timestamp": "2026-02-24T06:44:21.854Z",
-        "description": null,
-        "data_type": null,
-        "acronym": null,
-        "author": null,
-        "producer": null,
-        "geography": null,
-        "publication_year": null,
-        "reference_year": null,
-        "reference_population": null,
-        "is_used": null,
-        "usage_context": null
       }
     ],
     "document": {
@@ -254,7 +231,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "è è **\u0007Secondary data review:** Existing assessments\nby UNHCR, sister agencies and partners,\nincluding child protection partners that examine\nthe level of educational participation amongst\nrefugees and host community students, and\nidentify persistent issues, including quality\nissues, related to local or refugee-specific\naccess and retention.\n\n\nè è \u0007The **Joint Education Needs Assessments**,\nproduced by the Global Education Cluster,\nconsolidates the information needed to make\nprogrammatic decisions in the early phases of\nan emergency. These assessments may capture\nlimited information on OOSC and may be more\nappropriate for a sudden onset emergency.\nSubsequent in-depth assessments may be\nnecessary.\n\n\nè è \u0007The **Child Protection Rapid Assessment**\n**Toolkit** produced by the Global Protection\nCluster captures the linkages between\nprotection concerns and low education\nenrollment and attendance.\n\n\nè è \u0007The **Global Out Of School Children Initiative**\n**(OOSCI)** is a partnership between UNICEF\nand UNESCO Institute of Statistics that serves\nto improve data, analysis and create detailed\nOOSC profiles. If UNICEF and UNESCO at\ncountry-level are planning to conduct an **OOSCI**\n**national assessment**, UNHCR should advocate\nfor the inclusion of refugee children.\n\n#### **Programming Interventions to** **Consider for OOSC in Refugee Settings**\n\n\nUsing the assessment outcomes, **specific targeted**\n**interventions should be designed to establish**\n**or increase enrollment of OOSC** in appropriate\neducational programmes, with elements that\nsupport them to stay in school. Interventions should\nrespond to educational access and quality, and\nshould promote safe learning environments.\n\n\nBelow are a **few examples of some common**\n**interventions** . This is not an exhaustive list. It\nis important that interventions are designed\nand contextualized for each individual refugee\ncontext, and are accompanied by sufficient budget\nallocation.\n\n\n#### **Ensuring access to education:** **Advocacy at national level**\n\nè è \u0007Negotiate with education authorities to waive\nschool fees for national schools, to provide\neducation programmes that accommodate\nthe special needs of refugee OOSC and\nrecognition of prior learning through\nplacement tests.\n\n\nè è \u0007Establish robust data management systems\nand/or work with national partners to ensure\nthat Education Monitoring Information Systems\n(EMIS) capture education statistics for refugee\nchildren, and establish appropriate funding\nallocations in national education plans for\nregions where refugee populations live.\n\n\nè è \u0007Advocate for certification of education\nprograms by the Ministry of Education. Children\nand youth need education that is certified,\nproviding opportunities to participate in\nsecondary education and beyond.\n\n\nè è \u0007Promote the creation of education programs\nfor all ages including early childhood, primary/\nbasic, accelerated, secondary, tertiary, nonformal and adult.\n\n#### **Ensuring access to education at family** **and community levels**\n\n\nè è \u0007Establish referral mechanisms and/or specialized\nservices such as refugee information networks\nthat provide information about how to access\neducation services.\n\n\nè è \u0007Launch livelihoods activities for parents,\neducation grants or other sustainable direct\nassistance that may support vulnerable families\nand cover education costs, such as uniforms,\nmaterials or registration fees.\n\n\nè è \u0007Work with communities to support identification\nof OOSC and monitoring attendance of refugee\nboys, girls, at-risk children and vulnerable\ngroups.\n\n\nè è \u0007Involve communities in identifying at-risk\nchildren, and facilitate community participation\nin planning, designing, monitoring and\nassessing educational activities.\n\n\n\nOUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN REFUGEE SETTINGS **4**\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "\u00e8 \u00e8 **\u0007Secondary data review:** Existing assessments\nby UNHCR, sister agencies and partners,\nincluding child protection partners that examine\nthe level of educational participation amongst\nrefugees and host community students, and\nidentify persistent issues, including quality\nissues, related to local or refugee-specific\naccess and retention.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007The **Joint Education Needs Assessments**,\nproduced by the Global Education Cluster,\nconsolidates the information needed to make\nprogrammatic decisions in the early phases of\nan emergency. These assessments may capture\nlimited information on OOSC and may be more\nappropriate for a sudden onset emergency.\nSubsequent in-depth assessments may be\nnecessary.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007The **Child Protection Rapid Assessment**\n**Toolkit** produced by the Global Protection\nCluster captures the linkages between\nprotection concerns and low education\nenrollment and attendance.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007The **Global Out Of School Children Initiative**\n**(OOSCI)** is a partnership between UNICEF\nand UNESCO Institute of Statistics that serves\nto improve data, analysis and create detailed\nOOSC profiles. If UNICEF and UNESCO at\ncountry-level are planning to conduct an **OOSCI**\n**national assessment**, UNHCR should advocate\nfor the inclusion of refugee children.\n\n#### **Programming Interventions to** **Consider for OOSC in Refugee Settings**\n\n\nUsing the assessment outcomes, **specific targeted**\n**interventions should be designed to establish**\n**or increase enrollment of OOSC** in appropriate\neducational programmes, with elements that\nsupport them to stay in school. Interventions should\nrespond to educational access and quality, and\nshould promote safe learning environments.\n\n\nBelow are a **few examples of some common**\n**interventions** . This is not an exhaustive list. It\nis important that interventions are designed\nand contextualized for each individual refugee\ncontext, and are accompanied by sufficient budget\nallocation.\n\n\n#### **Ensuring access to education:** **Advocacy at national level**\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Negotiate with education authorities to waive\nschool fees for national schools, to provide\neducation programmes that accommodate\nthe special needs of refugee OOSC and\nrecognition of prior learning through\nplacement tests.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Establish robust data management systems\nand/or work with national partners to ensure\nthat Education Monitoring Information Systems\n(EMIS) capture education statistics for refugee\nchildren, and establish appropriate funding\nallocations in national education plans for\nregions where refugee populations live.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Advocate for certification of education\nprograms by the Ministry of Education. Children\nand youth need education that is certified,\nproviding opportunities to participate in\nsecondary education and beyond.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Promote the creation of education programs\nfor all ages including early childhood, primary/\nbasic, accelerated, secondary, tertiary, nonformal and adult.\n\n#### **Ensuring access to education at family** **and community levels**\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Establish referral mechanisms and/or specialized\nservices such as refugee information networks\nthat provide information about how to access\neducation services.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Launch livelihoods activities for parents,\neducation grants or other sustainable direct\nassistance that may support vulnerable families\nand cover education costs, such as uniforms,\nmaterials or registration fees.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Work with communities to support identification\nof OOSC and monitoring attendance of refugee\nboys, girls, at-risk children and vulnerable\ngroups.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Involve communities in identifying at-risk\nchildren, and facilitate community participation\nin planning, designing, monitoring and\nassessing educational activities.\n\n\n\nOUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN REFUGEE SETTINGS **4**\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [
       {
         "dataset_name": {
@@ -395,7 +372,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "è è \u0007Start sensitization activities that respond to\nmisconceptions or information gaps. Examples\ninclude targeted sensitization on girls’\neducation, early marriage or child labor.\n\n\nè è \u0007Identify education champions who can work\nwith community members of influence such as\nreligious leaders to promote school attendance\nand achievement.\n\n#### **Ensuring education quality and** **protection at school level**\n\n\nè è \u0007Provide teacher training and professional\nsupport to build basic teaching skills for\nunqualified teachers and amplified skills for\ntrained teachers in areas such as classroom\nmanagement, psychosocial support, or\nlanguage acquisition.\n\n\nè è \u0007Provide language classes for refugee children,\nand the wider community, especially in contexts\nwhere refugees do not speak the language of\ninstruction.\n\n\nè è \u0007Establish and monitor participatory teacher\ncodes of conduct, school policies that protect\nchildren from violence or corporal punishment\nin school, and programmes to combat bullying\nand discrimination, including Peace Education\nprogrammes.\n\n\n\nè è \u0007Adjust school timetables to accommodate\nrefugee children who might work at home or\nelsewhere.\n\n\nè è \u0007Maximize existing school infrastructure to meet\npopulation needs by using double, girls-only or\nother appropriate shifts.\n\n\nè è \u0007Identify mentors and role models who can\nincrease children’s motivation, particularly girls.\nTeachers and staff should be representative\nof the student body, and include women and\nethnic minorities.\n\n\nè è \u0007Provide Accelerated Education Programmes for\nover-age children who have been out of school\nand need to be placed in a level appropriate to\ntheir age.\n\n\nè è \u0007Facilitate representation of refugee parents in\nParent Teachers Associations (PTAs) and school\ngovernance bodies.\n\n\nè è \u0007Establish community support for school\nparticipation, for example by encouraging\ncommunity mechanisms that arrange to\naccompany groups of children to school if\nroutes are considered unsafe.\n\n\nè è \u0007Provide safe learning environments with\nadequate WASH facilities, classroom\ninfrastructure, and teaching and learning\nmaterials.\n\n\n\nOUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN REFUGEE SETTINGS **5**\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Start sensitization activities that respond to\nmisconceptions or information gaps. Examples\ninclude targeted sensitization on girls\u2019\neducation, early marriage or child labor.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Identify education champions who can work\nwith community members of influence such as\nreligious leaders to promote school attendance\nand achievement.\n\n#### **Ensuring education quality and** **protection at school level**\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Provide teacher training and professional\nsupport to build basic teaching skills for\nunqualified teachers and amplified skills for\ntrained teachers in areas such as classroom\nmanagement, psychosocial support, or\nlanguage acquisition.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Provide language classes for refugee children,\nand the wider community, especially in contexts\nwhere refugees do not speak the language of\ninstruction.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Establish and monitor participatory teacher\ncodes of conduct, school policies that protect\nchildren from violence or corporal punishment\nin school, and programmes to combat bullying\nand discrimination, including Peace Education\nprogrammes.\n\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Adjust school timetables to accommodate\nrefugee children who might work at home or\nelsewhere.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Maximize existing school infrastructure to meet\npopulation needs by using double, girls-only or\nother appropriate shifts.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Identify mentors and role models who can\nincrease children\u2019s motivation, particularly girls.\nTeachers and staff should be representative\nof the student body, and include women and\nethnic minorities.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Provide Accelerated Education Programmes for\nover-age children who have been out of school\nand need to be placed in a level appropriate to\ntheir age.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Facilitate representation of refugee parents in\nParent Teachers Associations (PTAs) and school\ngovernance bodies.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Establish community support for school\nparticipation, for example by encouraging\ncommunity mechanisms that arrange to\naccompany groups of children to school if\nroutes are considered unsafe.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 \u0007Provide safe learning environments with\nadequate WASH facilities, classroom\ninfrastructure, and teaching and learning\nmaterials.\n\n\n\nOUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN REFUGEE SETTINGS **5**\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/21d56009-4207-3a77-92d2-4f4341d9d1bf/560be1049.pdf",
@@ -405,7 +382,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "#### **Cross-Sectoral Issues to Consider**\n\nSchools are places where sectors can converge\nto meet children’s educational needs. Life-saving\ninformation is critical in refugee contexts where\nchildren are at risk of human trafficking, sexual\nexploitation, recruitment into armed groups and\nother forms of abuse and exploitation. Through\npartners, UNHCR staff can ensure such information\nis shared with children, their families and\ncommunities to protect children in fragile contexts.\nLife-saving information communicated in school\ncontexts about landmines, basic health and WASH\npractices such as safe hygiene and hand washing\ncan benefit all refugees.\n\n\nè è **Child Protection** **[5]** **:** psychosocial training\nfor education personnel can better equip\nthem to identify and support children with\nsignificant psychosocial needs. Establishing\nchild protection monitoring mechanisms can\nminimize violence and discrimination against\nchildren in school.\n\n\n5 Child Protection Minimum Standards, standard 20; CP and Education\n\n\n\nè è **Sexual Gender Based Violence:** SGBV partners\ncan support operations to consider the genderspecific needs of children, such as safe school\nroutes; gender-separated latrines with secure,\nprivate spaces for menstruating girls; Codes of\nConduct that ensure harassment-free zones for\nboth boys and girls; female teachers and role\nmodels.\n\n\nè è **\u0007Health and Nutrition:** health personnel and\nnutrition specialists can share information\non vaccination campaigns and other health\nservices, and health and nutrition education can\nbe integrated into teaching.\n\n\nè è **\u0007Water, Sanitation, Hygiene:** WASH specialists\ncan ensure that children and youth have access\nto dedicated, clean, gender-separated latrines,\nhand-washing facilities with soap, and safe\ndrinking water.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "#### **Cross-Sectoral Issues to Consider**\n\nSchools are places where sectors can converge\nto meet children\u2019s educational needs. Life-saving\ninformation is critical in refugee contexts where\nchildren are at risk of human trafficking, sexual\nexploitation, recruitment into armed groups and\nother forms of abuse and exploitation. Through\npartners, UNHCR staff can ensure such information\nis shared with children, their families and\ncommunities to protect children in fragile contexts.\nLife-saving information communicated in school\ncontexts about landmines, basic health and WASH\npractices such as safe hygiene and hand washing\ncan benefit all refugees.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 **Child Protection** **[5]** **:** psychosocial training\nfor education personnel can better equip\nthem to identify and support children with\nsignificant psychosocial needs. Establishing\nchild protection monitoring mechanisms can\nminimize violence and discrimination against\nchildren in school.\n\n\n5 Child Protection Minimum Standards, standard 20; CP and Education\n\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 **Sexual Gender Based Violence:** SGBV partners\ncan support operations to consider the genderspecific needs of children, such as safe school\nroutes; gender-separated latrines with secure,\nprivate spaces for menstruating girls; Codes of\nConduct that ensure harassment-free zones for\nboth boys and girls; female teachers and role\nmodels.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 **\u0007Health and Nutrition:** health personnel and\nnutrition specialists can share information\non vaccination campaigns and other health\nservices, and health and nutrition education can\nbe integrated into teaching.\n\n\n\u00e8 \u00e8 **\u0007Water, Sanitation, Hygiene:** WASH specialists\ncan ensure that children and youth have access\nto dedicated, clean, gender-separated latrines,\nhand-washing facilities with soap, and safe\ndrinking water.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/21d56009-4207-3a77-92d2-4f4341d9d1bf/560be1049.pdf",

annotation_data/unhcr_extractions/doc_2/raw/doc_2_direct_judged.jsonl

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 [
   {
-    "input_text": "# participation in the programme\n\n### **CF ‘Right to Protection’** **2021**\n\n1\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "# participation in the programme\n\n### **CF \u2018Right to Protection\u2019** **2021**\n\n1\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "## INTRODUCTION\n#### This report is mainly based on the results of the survey about intentions, challenges and obstacles encountered during participation in the compensation programme for damaged/destroyed housing objects launched within CMU resolution №767. In addition, a significant deal of information was gathered during our monitoring visits to plenty of settlements in Donetska and Luhanska oblasts in the period of October-December. Our outreach workers and legal team also took part in some of the commission assessment sessions either as observers or members, thus they had an opportunity to obtain firsthand experience on the implementation of the programme. By focusing on the perspective of claimants, this report complements a survey conducted by UNHCR in November 2020, which focuses on the functioning of the local assessment commissions, based on observations from R2P and other NGO members or observers in these commissions. R2P launched this survey primarily to find out whether this programme is relevant for its target audience, as well as to reveal the pitfalls of the programme from the perspective of participants. Therefore, we decided to survey our beneficiaries of IDP and conflict-affected background who reportedly had problems with damaged/destroyed housing objects and those potential beneficiaries whom our outreach workers already knew or got to know during field trips. The survey has been conducted in the period of October-November in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts via phone and face-to-face interviews. Besides, upon the completion of the survey, some cases were directed to R2P legal team for further investigation. As a result, our team not only conducted research but also promptly provided assistance to those who were willing to participate in the programme but for some reason experienced difficulties with applying for monetary compensation/assistance.\n\n\n\n\n\n3\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "## INTRODUCTION\n#### This report is mainly based on the results of the survey about intentions, challenges and obstacles encountered during participation in the compensation programme for damaged/destroyed housing objects launched within CMU resolution \u2116767. In addition, a significant deal of information was gathered during our monitoring visits to plenty of settlements in Donetska and Luhanska oblasts in the period of October-December. Our outreach workers and legal team also took part in some of the commission assessment sessions either as observers or members, thus they had an opportunity to obtain firsthand experience on the implementation of the programme. By focusing on the perspective of claimants, this report complements a survey conducted by UNHCR in November 2020, which focuses on the functioning of the local assessment commissions, based on observations from R2P and other NGO members or observers in these commissions. R2P launched this survey primarily to find out whether this programme is relevant for its target audience, as well as to reveal the pitfalls of the programme from the perspective of participants. Therefore, we decided to survey our beneficiaries of IDP and conflict-affected background who reportedly had problems with damaged/destroyed housing objects and those potential beneficiaries whom our outreach workers already knew or got to know during field trips. The survey has been conducted in the period of October-November in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts via phone and face-to-face interviews. Besides, upon the completion of the survey, some cases were directed to R2P legal team for further investigation. As a result, our team not only conducted research but also promptly provided assistance to those who were willing to participate in the programme but for some reason experienced difficulties with applying for monetary compensation/assistance.\n\n\n\n\n\n3\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [
       {
         "dataset_name": {
@@ -91,29 +91,6 @@
         "reference_population": null,
         "is_used": "False",
         "usage_context": "primary"
-      },
-      {
-        "dataset_name": {
-          "text": "further investigation",
-          "confidence": 1,
-          "start": 1621,
-          "end": 1642
-        },
-        "dataset_tag": "vague",
-        "source": "human",
-        "annotator": "rafamacalaba",
-        "timestamp": "2026-02-24T06:48:11.823Z",
-        "description": null,
-        "data_type": null,
-        "acronym": null,
-        "author": null,
-        "producer": null,
-        "geography": null,
-        "publication_year": null,
-        "reference_year": null,
-        "reference_population": null,
-        "is_used": null,
-        "usage_context": null
       }
     ],
     "document": {
@@ -124,7 +101,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "## I. KEY FINDINGS\n\n### A. PROFILING OF THE HOUSING SITUATION\n\nOverall, our respondents were surveyed on 826 cases, including 325 on destroyed and\n\n501 on damaged housing objects. Some respondents had two housing objects damaged\n\nand/or destroyed, thus we decided to focus primarily on the number of cases since experience\n\nregarding each of them might vary.\n\n\nThe degree of damage indicated in the official certificates issued upon the\n\ncommission assessment did not always match respondents’ own . Remarkably, in 12% (38)\n\ncases when people believed their housing to be destroyed they obtained a certificate on the\n\ndamaged housing whilst in 5% (23) cases it was the other way around. In turn, in 16% (134)\n\nout of all cases, no official assessment certificates were received. It should be noted that\n\nsometimes confusion arose when both participants and commissioners could not agree on\n\nthe character of housing damage since no clear instructions were found to be guided by.\n\n#### Condition of housing object according to official assessment certificates\n\n\nNo assessment certificate Damaged Destroyed\n\n\n\nDamaged\n\n\nDestroyed\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n0 100 200 300 400\n\n\nLevel of destruction according to assessment certificate\n\n\n4\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "## I. KEY FINDINGS\n\n### A. PROFILING OF THE HOUSING SITUATION\n\nOverall, our respondents were surveyed on 826 cases, including 325 on destroyed and\n\n501 on damaged housing objects. Some respondents had two housing objects damaged\n\nand/or destroyed, thus we decided to focus primarily on the number of cases since experience\n\nregarding each of them might vary.\n\n\nThe degree of damage indicated in the official certificates issued upon the\n\ncommission assessment did not always match respondents\u2019 own . Remarkably, in 12% (38)\n\ncases when people believed their housing to be destroyed they obtained a certificate on the\n\ndamaged housing whilst in 5% (23) cases it was the other way around. In turn, in 16% (134)\n\nout of all cases, no official assessment certificates were received. It should be noted that\n\nsometimes confusion arose when both participants and commissioners could not agree on\n\nthe character of housing damage since no clear instructions were found to be guided by.\n\n#### Condition of housing object according to official assessment certificates\n\n\nNo assessment certificate Damaged Destroyed\n\n\n\nDamaged\n\n\nDestroyed\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n0 100 200 300 400\n\n\nLevel of destruction according to assessment certificate\n\n\n4\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",
@@ -134,7 +111,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "It is worth noticing that some of the housing was damaged several times. To be more\n\nprecise, 145 were damaged twice, 46 – three times, 29 – more than that. One housing object\n\neven suffered 10 times.\n\n#### Housing object was damaged...\n\n\n\n700\n\n\n600\n\n\n500\n\n\n400\n\n\n300\n\n\n200\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n100\n\n\n0\n\n1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times            - 4 times\n\n\nMany housing objects took damage during the escalation of the hostilities in 2014 –\n\n2015. As time passes, the condition of the affected housing could change – either\n\ndeteriorate or be improved by restoration. That is why there was a question on the\n\ncondition as of the moment of the interview in 2020. Half of the objects was partially or fully\n\nrestored.\n#### Housing condition as of interview\n\n\n\nDestroyed\n\n\nDamaged\n\n\nPartially restored\n\n\nFully restored\n\n\nUnspecified\n\n\n\n0 100 200 300 400\n\n\n5\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "It is worth noticing that some of the housing was damaged several times. To be more\n\nprecise, 145 were damaged twice, 46 \u2013 three times, 29 \u2013 more than that. One housing object\n\neven suffered 10 times.\n\n#### Housing object was damaged...\n\n\n\n700\n\n\n600\n\n\n500\n\n\n400\n\n\n300\n\n\n200\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n100\n\n\n0\n\n1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times            - 4 times\n\n\nMany housing objects took damage during the escalation of the hostilities in 2014 \u2013\n\n2015. As time passes, the condition of the affected housing could change \u2013 either\n\ndeteriorate or be improved by restoration. That is why there was a question on the\n\ncondition as of the moment of the interview in 2020. Half of the objects was partially or fully\n\nrestored.\n#### Housing condition as of interview\n\n\n\nDestroyed\n\n\nDamaged\n\n\nPartially restored\n\n\nFully restored\n\n\nUnspecified\n\n\n\n0 100 200 300 400\n\n\n5\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",
@@ -154,7 +131,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "#### **'**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn general, in 546 cases (66.1%) respondents considered participating in the existing\n\n\n\nmechanism of monetary compensation/assistance; in 243 (29.4%) – did not, whilst, for 37\n\ncases (4.5 percent), owners said that they did not meet the eligibility criteria, or were not\n\nready to comply with them. Given that different conditions apply for destroyed and\n\ndamaged housing units, it might be more useful to break down the aforementioned data.\n\nOut of 325 instances of allegedly destroyed housing, respondents contemplated taking part\n\nin the scheme in 76.3% of the cases and did not in 18.5%. Regarding the damaged objects,\n\n\n\nthe corresponding values were 59.5% and 36.5% respectively.\n\n\n\nThe major reason for not applying was unwillingness to abandon title deeds (161 or\n\n66%). Remarkably, the share of responses was quite alike regarding both damaged and\n\ndestroyed properties: 64.5% and 71.7% respectively. Taking into account that this requirement\n\nis not relevant for the former, it indicates low awareness on the programme conditions.\n\nUncertainty in the positive outcome of the time-consuming procedure and disbelief in the\n\nobjective nature of the assessment were more common in cases of damaged properties\n\n(nearly 15% each vs 5%). Lack of ownership documents and unsatisfactory amount of\n\ncompensation were quoted more often in regards to the destroyed dwellings (18% and almost\n\n17% vs nearly 9% and 6%). Unclear procedure was almost exclusively referred to by the owners\n\n\n7\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "#### **'**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn general, in 546 cases (66.1%) respondents considered participating in the existing\n\n\n\nmechanism of monetary compensation/assistance; in 243 (29.4%) \u2013 did not, whilst, for 37\n\ncases (4.5 percent), owners said that they did not meet the eligibility criteria, or were not\n\nready to comply with them. Given that different conditions apply for destroyed and\n\ndamaged housing units, it might be more useful to break down the aforementioned data.\n\nOut of 325 instances of allegedly destroyed housing, respondents contemplated taking part\n\nin the scheme in 76.3% of the cases and did not in 18.5%. Regarding the damaged objects,\n\n\n\nthe corresponding values were 59.5% and 36.5% respectively.\n\n\n\nThe major reason for not applying was unwillingness to abandon title deeds (161 or\n\n66%). Remarkably, the share of responses was quite alike regarding both damaged and\n\ndestroyed properties: 64.5% and 71.7% respectively. Taking into account that this requirement\n\nis not relevant for the former, it indicates low awareness on the programme conditions.\n\nUncertainty in the positive outcome of the time-consuming procedure and disbelief in the\n\nobjective nature of the assessment were more common in cases of damaged properties\n\n(nearly 15% each vs 5%). Lack of ownership documents and unsatisfactory amount of\n\ncompensation were quoted more often in regards to the destroyed dwellings (18% and almost\n\n17% vs nearly 9% and 6%). Unclear procedure was almost exclusively referred to by the owners\n\n\n7\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",
@@ -184,7 +161,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "Some applicants, whose housing objects are located in settlements near to the contact\n\nline, could not get their properties accessed by the commission due to security reasons. In\n\nparticular, despite being requested, commissions did not visit some endangered parts of such\n\nsettlements as Pivdenne, Marinka, Krasnohorivka, Avdiivka, Opytne, Vodiane, Pisky, Berezove\n\n(Donetska oblast), and Zolote-4 (Luhanska oblast). In some cases, like in Marinka, JFO already\n\nconcluded there is no possibility to visit areas in the “red zone”, while in other cases, like in\n\nBerezove the decision of JFO was still being awaited.\n\n\n10\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "Some applicants, whose housing objects are located in settlements near to the contact\n\nline, could not get their properties accessed by the commission due to security reasons. In\n\nparticular, despite being requested, commissions did not visit some endangered parts of such\n\nsettlements as Pivdenne, Marinka, Krasnohorivka, Avdiivka, Opytne, Vodiane, Pisky, Berezove\n\n(Donetska oblast), and Zolote-4 (Luhanska oblast). In some cases, like in Marinka, JFO already\n\nconcluded there is no possibility to visit areas in the \u201cred zone\u201d, while in other cases, like in\n\nBerezove the decision of JFO was still being awaited.\n\n\n10\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",