Considering the Qualitative Impacts of Safe-Stove Programs: Lessons from the Western Highlands of Guatemala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2016, 2.6 million people died prematurely from indoor air pollution as a result of the inefficient burning of biomass fuels for cooking and energy in the global south. The health and environmental impacts of indoor air pollution have been well documented throughout decades of literature, and governments and non-governmental organizations alike have taken steps to implement “safe stove” programs to upgrade cookstoves in developing regions and begin to address these issues. While largely effective in reducing indoor air pollution and improving energy efficiency, the qualitative impacts of implementing safe stove programs have not yet been explored. This article aims to fill a gap in this literature by investigating why safe stoves are important to the women who participate in the projects, and what the qualitative impacts of combatting indoor air pollution are for communities as a whole. The research draws on in-depth interviews with women from the rural highlands of Guatemala in the Quetzaltenango region, and addresses topics such as dignity and self-esteem within these populations. Not intended to be a binding pieced of literature, this research serves as a good reminder that the focus of development initiatives should always be on improving the overall wellbeing of the participants who purportedly benefit from these projects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".