Evaluating the effectiveness of the Kidogo model in empowering women and strengthening their capacities to engage in paid labor opportunities through the provision of quality childcare: a study protocol for an exploratory study in Nakuru County, Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Worldwide, there is a wide gap between what women can contribute to the economy and what they actually contribute. One of the main barriers to women’s engagement in the labor market and productivity at work is the societal expectation that they should take care of their children in addition to meeting the demands of employment. Furthermore, those in informal employment face difficulties due to long working hours and environments that are not appropriate for childcare. To address this, Kidogo runs an innovative “Hub & Spoke” model for low-income communities. Here, we present a study protocol aimed at evaluating whether the provision of quality childcare opportunities for working women through the Kidogo model is feasible and acceptable and whether it contributes to improvements in their incomes and productivity at work. The study reported in this protocol which is currently ongoing, employed a quasi-experimental design with two study arms: primary caregivers who use childcare services were recruited into the intervention ( n = 170) and comparison groups ( n = 170). Both groups are being followed up for one year. We are using a mixed-methods approach. Appropriate statistical methods including a difference-in-differences (DID) estimator will be used to analyze the effects of the intervention. We expect that the intervention will improve the quality of childcare services which in turn will improve the incomes of the center providers. We expect that providing improved childcare services will enhance women’s economic empowerment. Trial registration: PACTR202107762759962.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".