Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I discuss grassroots development as portrayed in the development literature and use my findings to evaluate three local rural programmes in a poor, remote area of El Salvador, Central America. I set the context by briefly examining and comparing two approaches to development, namely, the paradigm of things and that of people. I also provide moral justifications for the latter paradigm and trace its history as an idea. I then discuss in detail the tree central tenets of grassroots development, participation/collective action, social organization and empowerment. Throughout this process local people are the main actors they are the ones who participate together to form a grassroots organization in order to empower themselves and take more control over their lives. Indicators for the three pillars of grassroots development are used to evaluate the three case studies. The cases are all in a poor department in northeastern El Salvador the participants are subsistence cultivators or artisans. In all three areas local people worked together with varying results. The local development association scored better overall when rated subjectively than did the two coffee co-operatives but the co-op members' well-being were enhanced more through group activities. All participants appeared to be taking more control of their lives.--Page i.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".