Redefining norms, exploring new avenues: Negotiations of women informal workers in Delhi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The changing nature of production activities in developing countries has brought into focus the contribution of large numbers of women who get pulled into the labor force either by choice or by compulsion. Women in the latter category often find themselves engaged in informal employment, in work that is inconsistent and low-paid, carried out under suboptimal working conditions. Their ability to improve their conditions of work and life is constrained not just by capitalist structures and the organization of production relations, but also by social structures of norms and cultural practices. The analysis in this article, based on ethnographic research among women engaged in the garment and construction industries in Delhi provides insights into the strategies that some women workers, in the two sectors that also largely comprised women belonging two different religious communities, adopt to contest precarious working conditions and patriarchal norms, and transition into more autonomous positions. This article asks that given the constraints particular to the garment and construction sectors, why and how do some women resist against structures of gender oppression? How do the differences or similarities in the socio-cultural norms of the two communities constrain and at times, also enable women’s choices and actions? This article brings forth the factors that lead women to resist against structures of gender oppression, challenge inequalities inherent in the organization of work, and the new meanings that they may assign to their own negotiations and interpretations of norms.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".