Governing agrifood systems for climate resilience and gender inclusivity: A strategic review of the evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women’s limited voice in governance and decision-making impedes inclusive climate resilience. This scoping review identifies barriers that hamper women’s participation in AFS decision-making and assesses interventions that amplify their voice and agency. Drawing on two analytical frameworks—the women’s empowerment in AFS governance framework (Ragasa et al., 2022) and the Reach-Benefit-Empower-Transform (RBET) framework (Quisumbing et al., 2023)—we synthesize evidence from 47 studies in the Global South. Barriers are found in two domains: access to climate-relevant agricultural innovations and exclusion from local governance processes. Best practices include gender-responsive extension, social innovations such as self-help groups and digital tools, and organizational strategies including gender budgeting and men’s engagement. We conclude that advancing women's leadership in AFS governance requires multi-level interventions that address structural, sociocultural, and informational inequities.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it