Gender Relations in Environmental Entitlements: Case of Coastal Natural Resources in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper is about a study that rested on the mapping of how men and women gain entitlements (access to, ownership and control) of coastal resources through endowments, referred to herein as environmental entitlements. Environmental entitlements are enhanced by institutional means and mechanisms and the policy dimension of which demand specific forms of action to promote and protect them. The central role played by institutions (regularised patterns of behaviour between men and women in society) in bringing about changes to the environment and society relationships, was the premises of the study. The study explored on how men and women command natural resources that are instrumental to their wellbeing (van Ingen, Kawau, & Wells, 2002). A combination of data collection techniques were used, which included in-depth household interviews, focus group discussions, participant observations, and documentary review to capture the understanding of the relationship between environmental entitlements and gender roles. Various alternative conceptualisations of gender-environment relations, which can roughly be thought of as translations of the findings into the environment domain, were also used. As an action research, it highlighted a number of empowerment issues for participatory implementation with the focus on women. This is in recognition that there is undervaluation of both environmental resources and of women’s labour in managing and conserving these.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".