Food Security in Developing Countries: Gender and Spatial Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food security in developing countries is determined by a variety of economic constraints. Smallholder farmers living near one another face similar socioeconomic conditions but may have different levels of food security. Neighbors can potentially ease economic constraints and promote food security by acting as channels of resources and information. These spatial effects are likely mediated by gender roles and norms. This study estimates gendered spatial effects using a sample of households across seven countries in Africa and Asia. Findings show that for every 100 additional calories that neighbors consume, own food security increases by seventeen calories. This effect is larger for female-headed households (49 percent) than for male-headed households (15 percent). The article examines homophily, finding that female-headed households benefit more from their female-headed neighbors (68 percent) than male-headed households benefit from their male-headed neighbors (16 percent). These results show that gender and space interact in promoting food security.HIGHLIGHTS Gendered spatial patterns shape the magnitude of food security spatial spillovers.Households headed by women benefit more from village food security than those headed by men.Female-headed households benefit even more from their female-headed neighbors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".