MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396619431 · doi:10.1111/joac.12588

‘Women stay behind and grow the food’: Agricultural productivity and the interstices of petty commodity production and reproductive labour in Tanzania

2024· article· en· W4396619431 on OpenAlexaff
A. Haroon Akram‐Lodhi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agrarian Change · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTanzaniaCommodityAgricultureProductivityEconomicsAgricultural productivityAgricultural economicsProduction (economics)Labour economicsMarket economyGeographyEconomic growthSocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inspired by the work of Carmen Diana Deere, this paper examines how an analysis of the work of rural production, even when gendered, is compromised if it does not incorporate reproductive labour. The paper presents estimates of the gender yield gap in agricultural crop productivity in Tanzania, along with the statistical causes of the gender yield gap, in order to demonstrate what is and why it matters. The paper then shows that the gender yield gap cannot be understood without interrogating how the reproductive labour of unpaid care and domestic work limits the time for productive activities available to women who have day‐to‐day decision‐making managerial control over plots of land. In this light, the paper suggests a way of rethinking the basic analytical frameworks of agrarian political economy in ways that are consistent with and incorporate the theoretical insights of Carmen Diana Deere. The implications of the analysis are stark: it should not be assumed that all members of an agrarian household share an identical class location, as remains far too often the default assumption in agrarian political economy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agrarian ChangeSame topicAfrican history and culture studiesFrench-language works237,207