A growth-centered approach to women's development in Grenada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how a growth-centred approach (Srinivasan, 1992) to development assisted a group of women in Grenada to build self and group confidence, and to increase literacy. The purpose of the study was to understand how this process could help other adult educators working within a similar context to assist women learners in developing and exercising their personal, social and literacy power. The initial design of the programme was based on the needs ascribed as a result of past experiences working with women's community groups in Grenada and informal perceptions communicated by local women working within the field of women, development and adult education. This article analyses a six-month participatory study that fostered women's growth as a political act of resisting negative labels and oppressive conditions. bell hooks' (1993) words served as the motivation for the research: ‘We cannot fully create effective movements for social change if individuals struggling for that change are not self-actualized or working towards that end’ (p. 4). A ‘growth-centered’ approach, as advanced by Srinivasan (1992), is shown to be a useful starting place for personal and social transformation within Grenadian women's lives and community groups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".