An integrated approach to gender equality, diversity, and inclusion in the development of artificial intelligence tools in agriculture and food system in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa faces complex challenges, such as low productivity, climate stress, and ongoing social inequalities, particularly affecting women and marginalised groups. Whilst artificial intelligence (AI) holds transformative potential for agriculture and food systems, its development often overlooks these stakeholders, thereby reinforcing existing disparities. This study investigates two AI research initiatives in Nigeria and Uganda that employed a design-by-inclusion approach rooted in gender equality, diversity, and inclusion (GEDI) principles. Through retrospective case studies involving small groups of women and persons with disabilities, we examine how participatory engagement influenced the relevance, usability, and confidence of AI tools amongst users. Drawing on insights from Feminist Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) and Design Justice, our analysis demonstrates that inclusive processes led to significant improvements in participants’ confidence and willingness to engage with AI tools. Based on these findings, we propose a practical framework for developing inclusive AI in agriculture. This work underscores the importance of context-sensitive, participatory design in fostering equitable and effective AI innovations within African agriculture.
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 | 0.043 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".