MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110719340 · doi:10.1177/1464993413504347

Women’s empowerment and micro-entrepreneurship in India: Constructing a new development paradigm?

2013· article· en· W2110719340 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Costanza Torri, Andrea Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Development Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentCasteEntrepreneurshipVariety (cybernetics)Economic growthPower (physics)SociologyInformal sectorPublic relationsBargaining powerDeveloping countryNarrativePolitical scienceBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the contribution of women to the economies of developing countries is critical, women rarely find employment in the regulated unionized sectors of these countries, and are found instead in overwhelming numbers in the sector that is variously termed ‘unorganized’, ‘unprotected’, ‘unregistered’ or ‘informal’. Although producers’ groups and collectives have been considered a way forward in promoting gender empowerment in the informal sector, the process to organize and develop these grass-root initiatives are challenging in a variety of ways, some of the impediments arising from women’s lack of bargaining power with outsiders and lack of internal inclusiveness of its own members. The purpose of this article is to advance discussion on women’s narratives of empowerment by exploring the case of Gram Mooligai Company Limited (GMCL). GMCL is the first female community enterprise in India active in the herbal sector, entirely formed and managed by untouchables. The findings show that GMCL enhances women’s productive capabilities, leadership skills and to some extent social learning abilities, but falls short to confronting marginalization resulting from issues of caste embedded in established patriarchal norms and practices. This case study points to the significance to adopt a more holistic approach, which conceives empowerment as a dynamic, socio-culturally constructed process.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.035
Scholarly communication0.0130.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations66
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Development StudiesSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207