Gendering the Political Economy of Smallholder Agriculture: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender plays a prominent role in shaping the practices and experiences of smallholding farming households. This scoping review seeks to chart and analyze how gender is used in the existing literature on the political economy of smallholder agriculture. The aim of this review is to first identify the extent to which gender is addressed as a unit of analysis in this body of literature, and second, to identify when and how gender is incorporated in this body of literature. The limited work on this topic may be due to a variety of factors, the most notable of which is the failure of political economy literature to attend to the small scale and the limited attention paid to the social dynamics of women and men in farming households. Classical political economy frameworks tend to dismiss micro-processes and trends in favor of macro-structural conditions. Included articles approach gender in two distinct ways: empirical (which frames gender as a binary unit of analysis, i.e., man–woman) and analytic (a construction that operates in different ways in different contexts). This review provides a nuanced understanding of how gendered identities produce and are produced by political economy, and how political economy shapes and is shaped by gender and household dynamics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".