MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052190977 · doi:10.1177/002071520204300310

Why are Some Women Politically Active? The Household, Public Space, and Political Participation in India

2002· article· en· W2052190977 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pradeep Chhibber

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCONTESTLegislaturePoliticsState (computer science)Representation (politics)Political scienceIdentity (music)Survey data collectionDemographic economicsEconomic growthEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women in India do not participate in political life to the same extent as men. While a fair number of women turn out to vote they have little representation in legislative bodies at the national and state level. This paper attributes the limited presence of women in legislative bodies to the fact that many women are still confined to the household. Evidence to support this claim comes from an analysis of a survey that was conducted in a state of Northern India to assess which women have been able to take the opportunity to join local bodies where, one-third of all seats, are now reserved for women. The analysis suggests that even after controlling for demographic factors, only those women who have an identity that is independent of the household are likely to avail the opportunity to contest elections for local bodies. The paper then extends the findings from the Indian case to other nations by analyzing the World Values Survey and finds that similar patterns exist globally. It is women who have an identity outside the household who are more likely to be politically active.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations103
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207