MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903036525 · doi:10.1080/19452829.2018.1545751

Development of a Tool to Measure Women’s Agency in India

2018· article· en· W2903036525 on OpenAlexafffund
Robin Richardson, Norbert Schmitz, Sam Harper, Arijit Nandi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Development and Capabilities · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill University
FundersDepartment for International DevelopmentDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéGovernment of the United KingdomInternational Development Research CentreMcGill UniversityCanada Research ChairsSpencer Foundation
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Confirmatory factor analysisConceptual modelConstruct (python library)Structural equation modelingConceptual frameworkPopulationConstruct validityPsychologySociologyStatisticsPsychometricsDemographySocial scienceComputer scienceMathematicsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensuring and expanding women’s agency is an essential component of efforts to promote the rights and well-being of women. However, inadequate measurement hampers monitoring and research into achieving this goal. In this study, we developed a theory-based measurement tool of women’s agency. We developed a conceptual model of agency through a review of the literature, and then used this model to identify potential indicators of agency. These indicators were asked as part of a population-based household survey that was completed between July and November 2016 by 3042 women in rural Rajasthan, India. We tested the construct validity of the hypothesized measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis. We identified a conceptual model of agency, composed of 23 indicators, which measured the domains Household Decision-Making, Freedom of Movement, Participation in the Community, and Attitudes and Perceptions. This conceptual model fit the study data well (CFI = 0.974, TLI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.031). Our results have implications for measurement efforts in a number of settings, and our tool can be used to measure women’s agency in rural India.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human Development and CapabilitiesSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207