Gender and Forest Commons of the Western Indian Himalayas: A Case Study of Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This paper discusses the role of women in common property use in the Indian Himalayas, outlining the central role of women in the use of village commons and the protection of village forests and pastures. Women were interviewed in two villages of the Kulu Valley and, in one village in particular, were found to have organized themselves in a similar manner to the women of the Chipko movement to regulate and protect village forests from degradation. The Mahila Mandal, a women's organization found throughout India, was the main vehicle for village control and management of common lands. While almost all women within the village were found to use village commons for the multiple purposes of fuel, fodder and/or cattle bedding, the present research did not find that all women were equally involved in the decision-making processes that occurred over the use and management of village commons. Caste considerations were essential for understanding the village-level decision-making processes over village common property. The Mahila Mandal was composed primarily of upper caste Rajput women. The exclusion of lower caste women from the village organization that regulated the use of village commons meant that specific needs of lower caste women were not incorporated into the management of village commons."
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".