MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171920951 · doi:10.1002/jid.3136

Representations of Women in Microcredit Promotional Materials: The Case of Espoir Ecuador

2015· article· en· W2171920951 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConceptualizationNeoliberalism (international relations)Power (physics)SociologyMicrofinanceGender studiesGender equalityPolitical scienceEconomic growthPolitical economyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we explore the nature and practices of representations of women in microcredit promotional discourses. Based on the case of Espoir, a microcredit non‐governmental organization in Ecuador, we argue that the representations of women in microcredit promotional discourses have been reshaped increasingly by neoliberal configurations of power. These discourses reinforce the conceptualization of women as key actors in the development process—of their households and communities, and Ecuador as a nation. This conceptualization elicits conflicting and contradictory implications that may empower women but exacerbate neoliberal understandings of development that can undermine gender equality. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.232 · 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