MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089220784 · doi:10.1080/13691058.2020.1812118

<i>‘I have the confidence to ask’</i>: thickening agency among adolescent girls in Karnataka, South India

2020· article· en· W3089220784 on OpenAlexaff
Satyanarayana Ramanaik, Martine Collumbien, Ashwini Pujar, Lottie Howard‐Merrill, Beniamino Cislaghi, Ravi Prakash, Prakash Javalkar, Raghavendra Thalinja, Tara Beattie, Stephen Moses, Shajy Isac, Mitzy Gafos, Parinita Bhattacharjee, Lori Heise

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)OutreachPsychologySocial psychologyQualitative researchPovertyFocus groupDevelopmental psychologyIntervention (counseling)Gender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gender norms serve to normalise gender inequalities and constrain girls’ agency. This paper examines how girls’ agency, along a continuum, is influenced by the interplay between constraining and enabling influences in the girls’ environments. We analyse data from a qualitative study nested within a cluster randomised evaluation of Samata, a multi-layered programme supporting adolescent girls to stay in school and delay marriage in Karnataka, South India. Specifically, we compare agency among 22 girls from intervention communities and 9 girls in control communities using data from the final round of interviews in a qualitative cohort. Using the concept of ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ agency on a continuum, we identified shocks like mothers’ death or illness, poverty stress, gender norms and poor school performance as thinning influences. Good school examination results; norms in support of education; established educational aspirations; supportive parents, siblings and teachers; and strategic government and Samata resources enabled thicker agency. The intervention programme’s effect increased in parallel to the gradient from thin to thicker agency among girls in progressively supportive family contexts. Engagement with the programme was however selective; families adhering to harmful gender norms were not receptive to outreach. In line with diffusion theory, late adopters required additional peer encouragement to change 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Health & SexualitySame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207