Gendered Uptake of Sustainable Intensification Practices among Maize Commercializing Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Districts of Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercialization of food crops, such as maize can dynamically shift control over productive resources or accrued income from women to men. This can restrict women’s ability to access or buy productive inputs. However, scanty information is available on how changing gender roles and relations can affect smallholder farmers’ use of sustainable intensification practices. This study described how gender inequalities in access to resources and appropriation of gains affect the uptake of sustainable intensification (SI) practices among maize commercializing farmers in eastern Uganda. Qualitative Survey data collected from a random sub-sample of 72 (36 women and 36 men) maize farmers from 584 maize commercializing smallholder farmers survey participants, was subjected to thematic content analysis. It was intended to follow up four unique profiles of farmers; those who did not use SI practices, the ones who used only intensification (improve maize varieties and fertilizers) or sustainable practices (organic manure and maize-legume intercrop), and those who used joint, one or more sustainable intensification practices. Findings revealed all four profiles to be highly gendered. Only women did not use any SI practice, and only men used intensification practices due to gender roles, responsibilities, and tasks shaped by traditions that give men terminal control over productive assets and gained resources. Both men and women used sustainable and sustainable intensification practices because of the negotiation process and opportunities that gave women more rights over resources. Thus, social-cultural histories and values constrain married women from implementing innovations such as SI practices because these values restrict women’s authority over productive resources. It is recommended that for inclusive transformative interventions to be introduced successfully in rigid patriarchal contexts, it is vital to enhance the negotiation skills of 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".