Addressing the challenges and constraints of social protection policies for Peruvian women domestic workers: the ANITA project study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Domestic workers (DWs) are vulnerable to precarious or informal working conditions with limited access to social protection policies such as employer-paid health insurance or retirement pensions. This study aims to examine the working conditions, health status and access to healthcare for women DWs in Peru and propose recommendations to improve their access to social protection policies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The project uses a participatory action research approach by engaging three committees: a DW co-researcher committee, an advisory committee and a steering committee. The first two include former or current DWs, while the third includes policymakers and academics. We use a sequential mixed-methods design organised in four phases: (1) secondary data analysis (n=4216): using two Peruvian national surveys to characterise working conditions, health status and access to healthcare; (2) face-to-face survey (n=448): with DWs in three cities, using respondent-driven sampling to further characterise working and health conditions and to identify factors that influence knowledge of and access to social protection policies; (3) qualitative interviews (n=30-46): with DWs, leaders of DW organisations, employers and policymakers to gather different perspectives on the facilitators and barriers to access to social protection policies; and (4) deliberative dialogues (n=14-26): with DW, leaders of DW organisations, employers, policymakers and academics to identify key barriers to the implementation of social protection policies and to develop recommendations for overcoming these barriers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Phase 1 and Phase 2 received ethical clearance from Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia in Peru and Unity Health Toronto in Canada. Phase 3 and Phase 4 received ethical clearance from PRISMA Charitable Association in Peru and Unity Health Toronto in Canada. To mobilise knowledge, in collaboration with the committees, we will co-generate policy briefs and audiovisual materials to disseminate the results from this project to different audiences and sectors.
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 | 0.045 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.007 |
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".