Framing Situated Knowledge: A Knowledge Framework for Gender and Sustainability in the Global South
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper advances a five-pillar framework for rethinking gender and sustainability scholarship in the Global South. Confronting climate crises, entrenched gender inequities, and epistemic hierarchies shaped by colonial legacies, it argues for a transformative agenda grounded in decolonial, feminist, and participatory epistemologies. The five pillars – (1) Situated Knowledge & Epistemic Justice, (2) Structural Intersectionality & Decolonial Feminism, (3) Relationality & Care Ethics, (4) Ecosocial Resistance & Grassroots Praxis, and (5) Methodological Pluralism & Ethical Co-Production – emerge from cross-disciplinary feminist and decolonial research as recurrent sites where theory and practice intersect.Case studies of energy-access brokerage, gender-transformative climate governance, and women’s agroecology networks illustrate how plural epistemologies and grassroots praxis generate counter-hegemonic models of sustainability. Methodological commitments – such as participatory action research, photovoice, multilingual dissemination, and reflexive ethics – translate these principles into practice while acknowledging challenges of resource intensity, institutional inertia, and risks of tokenism.
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 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".