Capability Approach: Potential for Transformative Education Research on Gender and Culture in Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much work has been completed with regards to gender and education. Some strides too, have been made in achieving gender equality in education: the greatest being in physical access to school for boys and girls. However, numerous challenges have been met in this process of attempting to achieve gender equality in education. Researchers have come to some consensus that there exist cultural traits and practices that either constrain or enable achieving gender equality in education (Stromquist, 990; Gordon, 1994; Prasad, 2004; Kalu, 2005; Chikunda, 2010; Chetcuti and Kioko 2012). The purpose of this paper is to argue for the use of Amartya Sen’s capability approach as a theoretical tool to enrich the gender-education discourse with specific focus on culture in Zimbabwe. Emphasis is given to cultural attributes and practices that are deemed retrogressive to achieving gender equality and equity in the country. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to a discussion on overcoming cultural barriers that prevent certain individuals from converting resources to desired educational functionings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".