Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines small-scale development programs targeting women in Niger and Senegal between 1962 and 1975. Development's attention to large-scale public works and programs targeting men as productive laborers obscures UNESCO's promise to provide men and women in developing countries equal access to and an equal role in the transformation of their nations. Studying women's animation, a grassroots approach to modernizing rural African villages, allows us to better understand the gendered and raced dimensions of development and explore tensions among and between development planners. This article asks how white women experts, who sought to emphasize women's needs and to valorize their contributions, fit into development. It examines women practitioners’ efforts to counter gendered assumptions about the agents of change in Africa. It shows that women experts adhered to development's universalist worldview, yet simultaneously encountered and critiqued failures to uphold the development ethos. It demonstrates that development's modernization programs perpetuated ideas about women's labor, relegating it to the domestic and reproductive spheres.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".