Mapping research frontiers in gender and sustainability in agricultural development: a bibliometric review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gender and sustainability are crucial in agriculture, which remains a significant source of global employment. However, urbanization, industrialization, and technological advancements have reshaped the sector, impacting labor dynamics and gender roles. Traditional agricultural labor faces challenges due to low wages, physically demanding tasks, and unfavorable working conditions. Addressing gender disparities and promoting inclusive work environments is essential for achieving sustainability. According to the ILO (International Labour Office) decent work encompasses productivity and equal employment opportunities for both genders. This study aims to review the literature on gender, sustainability and agricultural development using a bibliometric analysis of Scopus-indexed articles. The findings identify five main research domains: gender dynamics and roles, agriculture and climate change, sustainability and development, human and labor dynamics, and environmental and technological aspects. Additionally, four key scientific communities led the research: Gender studies, agricultural economics, environmental management, and rural sociology. Emerging research trends focus on gender roles in sustainable farming, environmental innovation, and labor governance in agriculture. Spain, the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada lead in knowledge production, contributing significantly to these research domains. This review highlights the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to address the complex issues of gender and sustainability in agriculture. It also specifies a target for expectations research, highlighting that the ILO’s definition of appropriate employment can guide efforts to improve gender equity and labor conditions, ultimately supporting sustainable development in the agricultural sector.
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 | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.195 | 0.257 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".