Intrahousehold empowerment patterns, gender power relations, and food security in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined (a) the relationship between women's empowerment, men's empowerment, and food security within households and (b) the effect of gender power in households on the food security status of women and men in Uganda's fishing villages using NutriFish project data ( N = 762). An inaugural intersectional gender analysis approach applied the project‐level Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro‐WEAI), categorizing indicators into five domains: decision making, labor sharing, resource access, norms and beliefs, and gender parity within households. Binary logit models were computed, including interactions between the empowerment of women and men, controlling for individual‐ and household‐level characteristics, and stratified by gender and occupation (i.e., fishing vs. non‐fishing) to account for context differences. Results showed that empowering women in non‐fishing groups enhanced food security for both genders, regardless of men's empowerment. In fishing groups, women's food security improved most when their partners were already empowered, while men's empowerment remained relatively unaffected. Notably, the norms and beliefs domain was strongly linked to food security, except for non‐fishing men. Context‐specific gender interventions and analyses are vital to address food security disparities and critical to informing project implementers and policymakers in gender‐ and nutrition‐sensitive development projects to target the most vulnerable groups.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".