Improving the Measurement of Women’s Work: The Contribution of Demographic Surveys in Francophone West Africa
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
Since the 1970s, the measurement and recognition of women’s work and their contributions to family well-being and economic development have been a matter of academic interest, as well as feminist advocacy. The interrelationships between women’s work and demographic processes, especially decisions regarding fertility, have also attracted the attention of demographers for some time. However, despite long-standing efforts to capture all aspects of women’s work, large-scale demographic and economic surveys conducted in the Global South still fail to approach work as a gendered concept and continue to make much of women’s labor invisible. The measurement of unpaid care and household responsibilities is particularly scarce. In such a context, the purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, it retraces the long history of the global efforts of feminist scholars and activists to enhance the measurement of women’s work. Second, it illustrates how recent data collection initiatives in francophone West Africa, building on the experience of collaborative research conducted by demographers in the region since the 1970s, have attempted to fill some of the persisting gaps in data on women’s activity, especially on household domestic and care, voluntary collective/community work, as well as on women’s contribution to household expenses and family support.
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 | 0.018 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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