Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the mid-1990s, nearly all of the countries in Latin America have adopted a conditional cash transfer (CCT) program. These critical programs – which have become the standard poverty reduction policy across the region – provide subsidies to poor mothers on the condition that they enroll their children in school and take them for health check-ups. The first and norm leader program, Mexico’s Progresa, included gender equality and empowerment of women as part of its original design goals. However, since Progresa, no Latin American CCT program has been designed with reduction of gender inequalities in mind. Feminist scholars have critiqued these programs as “maternalist.” What happened to the goals of gender equality along the way? This article sheds light on the World Bank’s involvement in weakening the gender equality goals that were an integral part of the original policy design. In redesigning CCT programs, the World Bank has sidelined these goals in two significant ways. First, policy entrepreneurs, committed to evidence-based policies, have omitted the female empowerment argument in response to mixed results on the matter of gender and CCTs. Second, gender experts (and gender knowledge) at the World Bank have been marginalized in favor of their economist and development expert colleagues.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".