MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018904126 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v3n1p57

IMPACT Model of Women’s Empowerment

2009· article· en· W2018904126 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aryan Gholipour, Ashraf Rahimian, Azam Mirzamani, Mona Zehtabi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Tehran
KeywordsEmpowermentPsychologyDelegationValiditySocial psychologyScale (ratio)Political sciencePsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empowerment as delegation of power to someone has been a mechanism to increase personal and work life quality of woman in recent decades. Higher education and occupation are effective instrument to empowerment of women but culture role can't be denied in this relation. Social norms can directly or indirectly limite women empowerment. In this article the role of higher education and occupation in psychological empowerment of women in Tehran has been quested.Current research is a descriptive-practical research. Education and occupation were independent variable and empowerment was dependent variable. Random sampling was used and 600 questionare was completed by women in Tehran city. To determine validity of scale we took advantages of construct validity and factor anaysis. The reliability index of Chronbakh was 0.8945 and spearman correlation and structural equations model was used for statistical analysis.Results of research indicate that higher education and organizational occupation determine the level of to empowerment for women in Tehran.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207