MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129938767 · doi:10.5539/ass.v6n11p3

Embodiment and Emotionality of Women Credit Clients: Scrutinizing Agency Constraints of Microcredit Clients in Sunamganj, Bangladesh

2010· article· en· W2129938767 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abid Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiteit AntwerpenVlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)EmotionalityPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Social psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper unfolds how the agency practices of microcredit clients are produced and reproduced by the intended actions of agents in terms of ‘embodiment’ and ‘emotionality’. To justify the process, data of the present study were collected through in-depth informal interviews and an interview guideline was used for specific questions and issues in the view of analytical framework approach. Socio-cultural constructions within any particular society typify the agency exercise of a particular group of people involved in the process. In this regard, the study finds that ‘emotionality’ and ‘embodiment’ as the confining factors of the clients considered as socio-cultural barriers that are so important to grasp before development intervention and implementation. And the study also finds that the repayment pressure of credit brings emotional stress and anxiety in the everyday life of clients involved with microcredit system. Replication of microcredit operations should consider the internal structure of the particular social locale.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207