Impact of Self-help Groups on Rural Women in Jammu District
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microfinance has evolved over the past quarter century across India into various operating forms and to a varying degree of success. One such form of microfinance has been the development of the self help movement. SHG is a group of rural poor who have volunteered to organize themselves into a group for eradication of poverty of the members. SHG is a group formed by the community women, which has specific number of members like 15 to 20. In such a group the poorest women would come together for emergency, disaster, social reasons, economic support to each other have ease of conversation, social interaction and economic interactions. This study on Impact of Self Help Groups on rural women was conducted to study the formation mechanism of Self Help Groups and to measure the impact of SHGs on rural women in means of decision making. The study consists of 250 women members of SHGs and 250 non- SHG women members as selected respondents. The findings indicate that highest majority of women participated in SHGs for economic independence, income-generation activities and social contacts. The impact of decision making on SHG members were found significantly higher than non- SHG members in Household Expenditure, Education of Children, Marriage of Children, Marketing and Social Customs in the home.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".