COVID-19, livelihoods and gender: Material, relational and subjective realities in rural Zambia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores material, relational and subjective elements of wellbeing as micro-level gendered impacts of COVID-19 policy responses on agro-based livelihoods. Using a test case of rural Zambia, we apply a mixed methods research design and draw data from household surveys, household case study interviews, group discussions, and multi-level interviews. Results show gendered impacts at four significant levels of granularity: markets and material wellbeing, household provisioning, labour and care burdens, relationships and social networks, and disruptions to membership organisations and social initiatives. Production and processes leading to market disruptions lead to a gendered reconcentration of economic activities around men who flex financial muscle and flout COVID-19 guidelines respectively. Women on the other hand are squeezed out of production and market circuits, quickly loosing livelihood strategies and getting relegated to unpaid and invisible household work. Whereas women endeavour to find ways to support their families, such as attempting to maintain group savings initiatives, low levels of policy satisfaction, including declining production and market dynamics limit actions towards inclusive and equitable forms of COVID-19 recovery in rural geographies. We call for holistic interventions that consider community patterns of livelihoods and how they are impacted by the pandemic, necessitating a focus on gender sensitive initiatives that are locally driven, build resilience and empower women.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it