MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739881465

Selection of development agenda with the community by the generation of a shared understanding

2017· article· en· W2739881465 on OpenAlex
Vijay Honkalaskar, Milind Sohoni, Upendra Bhandarkar

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Economic Development in India
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentSociologyCitizen journalismParticipatory action researchPopulationSocial stratificationCastePolitical scienceWelfare economicsSocial scienceAnthropology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article attempts to address the problem of generating a common understanding of the multidimensional aspects of a community across its diverse social groups required for setting a development agenda, by carrying out a Participatory Action Research exercise in the tribal village Gawandwadi—population 293. The proposed process ensures involvement and empowerment of the local people and reduces the influence of the existing social stratification in the community—mainly gender based stratification is discussed in the article. It emphasizes four key components: (a) understanding the contextual community level decision making process, (b) participatory study of the multifarious quantitative aspects of a community, (c) identification of the differential qualitative aspects—such as needs, desires, and feelings—borne by multiple groups—based on gender, class, and caste—across the community, and (d) arriving at a shared appreciation of rationales for these differences. The process reduces possible conflicts incurred due to the lack of ownership of the development goal within the community. Keywords: gender and decision making; development agenda; community based participatory research; empowerment; needs assessment; India Resume Cet article vise a cerner l'importance de mieux comprendre les aspects multidimensionnels d'une communaute a travers ses differents groupes sociaux requis pour mettre en place un programme de developpement, en realisant un exercice de type Plan d'Action Participatif dans le village tribal de Gawandwadi—population 293 habitants. Le processus propose s'assure de l'implication et de l'autonomisation des personnes locales et reduit l'influence des stratifications sociales existantes dans la communaute—les stratifications basees sur le genre font principalement l'objet de l'article. Il met l'accent sur quatre elements: (a) comprendre le niveau de processus de prise de decisions contextuel de la communaute, (b) une etude participative des divers aspects quantitatifs de la communaute, (c) l'identification des aspects differentiels qualitatifs—tels que les besoins, les desirs et les sentiments—supportes par de multiples groupes—en fonction du genre, de la classe sociale et de la caste—a travers la communaute, et (d) arriver a une appreciation partagee de justifications de ces differences. Le processus reduit les conflits possibles qui resultent du manque d'appropriation d' objectifs de developpement au sein de la communaute.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.151 · 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