Basin level gendered vulnerabilities and adaptation: A case of Gandaki River Basin
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptation programs and policies that acknowledge contextual understanding of gender-based vulnerabilities are effective to build the resilience of the most vulnerable. However, the challenge is to derive lessons from micro analysis of differential vulnerabilities caused by unequal power relations among different gender groups belonging to various social strata and take it to a broader policy level. Based on gender analysis of vulnerable populations living in different stretches of Gandaki river basin in the Hindu Kush Himalaya region, this paper presents issues on gendered vulnerabilities and suggests possible adaptation measures. Evidence based on a participatory assessment of socioeconomic drivers and conditions leading to vulnerabilities and gender analysis of 107 Focus Group Discussions with homogenous groups of women and men belonging to various vulnerable social groups at up, mid and downstream of the basin form primary data source. The analysis concludes that there are changes in gender space, i.e. roles, responsibilities and domains to cope stressors. These include an increasing trend of women's presence in the local market and men's involvement in distant markets, both as labourers or small entrepreneurs. However, there are insufficient corresponding institutional and policy responses on social security and protection measures to address these changes. As a result, extreme of vulnerabilities such as violence against women and children have increased.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it