MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200262213 · doi:10.2166/h2oj.2021.100

‘They will listen to women who speak but it ends there’: examining empowerment in the context of water and sanitation interventions in Ghana

2021· article· en· W3200262213 on OpenAlexaff
Florence Dery, Elijah Bisung, Sarah Dickin, Jeremiah Atengdem

Bibliographic record

VenueH2Open Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersDepartment for International Development
KeywordsSanitationEmpowermentPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Agency (philosophy)Public relationsQualitative researchCorporate governanceHygieneGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceSociologyEconomic growthBusinessNursingMedicineGeographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gender plays a vital role in shaping access to and governance of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services in many contexts. Notably, women and men have different WASH-associated roles as well as varying access to resources and power. This study explores the meanings of women's empowerment in the WASH sector from the perspective of local stakeholders in the Asutifi North District, Ghana. A qualitative approach was employed, which involved 15 key informant interviews with community leaders, local government professionals, and WASH practitioners. Participants conceptualized empowerment in terms of four major themes: (1) availability of resources, (2) WASH information, (3) social and cultural structures, and (4) agency. Participants defined empowerment as a multifaceted process shaped by their physical, social, cultural, and political environments. The study provides researchers and practitioners with a greater understanding of the dimensions of empowerment that are relevant to strengthening WASH interventions and practices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueH2Open JournalSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207