A feminist interpretation of Grameen Bank Sixteen Decisions campaign
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to look at Grameen Bank (GB) Sixteen Decisions campaigns and its implications to feminism; and to examine the degree to which women borrowers of the Grameen Bank are empowered to participate in familial decision‐making around dowry and teenage marriage and to develop their public spaces in the community. Moreover, the paper critically looks at the GB women borrowers' development through the Sixteen Decisions. Design/methodology/approach The study uses multiple research methods. It reviews and analyzes GB Sixteen Decision texts and feminist literature, uses survey method to collect data from Grameen Bank micro borrowers in 2011 and uses secondary data. Findings The survey finds information on the GB members and GB family members elected in the Union Parishad Elections in 1997 and in 2003, a testimony that GB women borrowers' local counsel participation trend is increasing. This study still finds the gender equality issues exist in the GB Sixteen Decisions texts and the Sixteen Decisions campaign strategies for women borrowers' empowerment. Originality/value This critical analysis of GB Sixteen Decisions is very important to empower GB women borrowers because the GB Sixteen Decisions texts and the Sixteen Decisions campaigns could be made more effective in addressing women's issues like dowry‐less marriage, teenage marriage and gender equality rights in the family and community space if Grameen Bank could revise the Sixteen Decisions texts and support borrowers in their anti‐dowry and anti‐teen age marriage campaign in Bangladesh.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 it