Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coffee is an important and highly traded commodity in the international marketplace. However, the production and sale of coffee has created an unfair trading system where small-scale peasant producers are greatly disadvantaged. In response to this unfair system, a movement called alternative trade, which is directed by the International Federation for Alternative Trade (IFAT), is working to give small-scale producers of coffee a more stable market and opportunities for social development. However, no information is available as to whether the needs of women, who are producers of coffee and labourers on cooperatively owned plantations, are being met. Therefore, the central question posed is: To what extent, if at all, do alternative trade coffee cooperatives have the potential to meet the practical and strategic gender needs of women coffee workers? The question has been answered through the application of feminist development approaches to three case studies; two focused on craft cooperatives and one on a coffee cooperative. Analyzing three case studies through Women in Development (WID) and Gender and Development (GAD) lenses, have helped to discern the extent to which practical and strategic gender needs are being met. The information used for the analysis was made available from both written literature and the original research I conducted in Guatemala. The findings suggest that craft cooperatives and the coffee cooperative do have the potential to meet practical and, to a lesser extent, strategic gender needs. However, meeting strategic gender needs are not of primary concern to both the IFAT and the male cooperative managers. Strategic gender needs are being met to a certain capacity indirectly through participation and occasional awareness-raising in the craft cooperatives. Coffee cooperatives need to learn from the positive outcomes of the craft cooperatives. This suggests some important implications, both for practical policy direction for IFAT and for further research. The significance of this study is that alternative trade development projects have potential to help women in the Third World meet crucial practical and strategic gender needs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".