MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394755442 · doi:10.1177/23210222241237030

The Complexity of Female Empowerment in India

2024· article· en· W4394755442 on OpenAlexaff
Siwan Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Microeconomics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentAgency (philosophy)Salience (neuroscience)Women's empowermentContext (archaeology)Political sciencePoliticsEconomic growthDevelopment economicsSociologyPsychologyEconomicsGeographyLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On a global scale, India ranks very poorly in terms of gender equality. This overall indicator masks important heterogeneities across the separate measures of female empowerment. India scores very highly with regards to equality of civil liberties and the political participation of women. But the country falls well below the global average with respect to equal access to economic resources and protection from gender-based violence. These poorer empowerment indicators have persisted not only in the wake of strong economic progress, but also in the context of an impressive set of government led reforms and policies targeting women. These different initiatives have successfully augmented women’s agency in both the private and public spheres of life, but women and girls still face extreme discrimination and violence. The salience of restrictive local customs appears to be a core hindrance towards transformative change. This paper reviews the economics literature which examines this complexity across the different dimensions of female empowerment in India. It highlights the newly emerging research focused on ameliorating gender biased norms and discusses potential steps forward. JEL Classifications: J12, J16

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in MicroeconomicsSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207