"Just doing what needs to be done:" rural women's peacebuilding on the prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Usually bubbling under the surface of the ordinary everyday routines of life, women’s volunteering in their communities, helping out and just doing what needs to be done, represent a significant phenomenon in sustaining and developing human life and civilization. Embedded within their everyday community action is a dialectical learning and cognitive praxis which informs their situated public care practice. Grassroots peacebuilding is dependent on the efforts of volunteers. As well, volunteering itself is a means for building social cohesion, solidarity and trust—factors fundamental to sustainable development and peace. Rural women’s community involvement is situated within the everyday of their diverse communities. There is diversity both within and between rural communities; as well rural women represent a diverse group in regards to age, race, class, ethnicity, language, marital and family status, ability, and religion. Blending participant observation and in-depth interviewing, this ethnographic study explored rural women’s community involvement practice and learning in South-Central Manitoba. This study invited women from across the region; representing a mix of age, race, education, ability, ethnicity, religion and areas of involvement, to share their stories of being involved in their communities. Their narratives revealed a rich story of women’s peacebuilding for individual and community wellbeing fitting into a tradition of rural women’s community development. As well, their learning narratives revealed a situated community involvement learning within the action and reflection of being community involved.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".