Understanding the aspirations of ultra-poor women in Bangladesh can enhance wellbeing and target development efforts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much development research is focused on deprivations as well as contextual factors that limit individuals' freedoms and choices to lead the lives they value; however, less attention is paid to ‚the ends‛ or ‚the good life‛ and how these can inform development efforts.This paper examines the aspirations of 43 ultra-poor female heads of household living in urban and rural Bangladesh within the context of wellbeing, i.e., the lives they value, in order to better understand how they could be assisted through development efforts.All women in our study articulated conceptions of personal wellbeing that were linked to their children and with the aim of conducting themselves as good mothers and honourable women.Physical and emotional hardship and the sacrifice of personal aspirations, happiness, nutrition, and health were required to establish children, who might in turn care for them in their old age; still, achieving these modest goals was difficult and resulted in constant worry or ‚tension.‛Given the life these women value, social programs and policies that aim to support ultra-poor women who have children must consider how they can provide assistance that will benefit women directly without asking them to withhold assistance from their children.Keywords: wellbeing, well-being, capability approach, Bangladesh, ultra-poor women, whole person development 1 While it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed review of capabilities, functionings, aspirations, and wellbeing, this can be found in Ibrahim (2011). 2 Further information on the Wellbeing in Developing Countries Research can be found at http://www.welldev.org.uk/research/research.htm.3 In fact, the women in our study and local NGO workers were largely unaware of each other, especially in urban settings.Further details can be found in McIntyre, Rondeau, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield, Islam, & Huda (2011).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".