MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016856468 · doi:10.22329/csw.v17i1.5889

Policy Advocacy on Women's Issues in India

2019· article· en· W3016856468 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Govind Dhaske

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Work · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Social justicePolicy advocacySocial policyPublic policyState (computer science)Work (physics)Social changeSociologySocial issuesEconomic JusticePublic administrationEconomic growthPublic relationsSocial scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advocating human development and social justice, and influencing the policy-induced change, are primary roles of social workers. However, in India, policy advocacy on women’s issues involves context-specific challenges due to politico-religious society and institutions. Social workers are challenged by different gendered beliefs across public and private systems while promoting gender equality in India. Therefore, policy advocacy on women’s issues implies changing gendered social contexts and confront a range of entities and institutions governed by state policies. Using a conceptual approach, author outlines challenges for social work in advocating women’s issues in India. The paper concludes with suggestions for social work education and practice for effective policy advocacy on gender issues in 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.019
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Social WorkSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207