Selection of development agenda with the community by the generation of a shared understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.034 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".