Understanding the Gambia Success Story in Girls’ Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents a case study of gender equity in education policy and practice in The Gambia, a small but densely populated country in West Africa that has been among those countries where remarkable strides in girls’ education have been achieved, supported by the formulation and enforcement of policies, strategies, and frameworks that promote the attainment of the right to education for all. Using Unterhalter’s (2007) conceptual framing of gender equity in education policy orientations (interventionist/institutional/interactive) our central objective is to better understand the reasons behind the apparent Gambian success story, but also to suggest the limits of and remaining challenges for gender equity policy and programing in the country. Two related arguments are made. First, that the Gambia case illustrates the importance of a multidimensional policy approach to addressing gender-based inequalities in education. Second, we argue that The Gambia case also illustrates Unterhalter’s claim that while the strategies associated with interventionist/instrumentalist and institutional approaches may be necessary, they are nonetheless insufficient if we want to connect and pursue gender equity in education as a matter of social justice, and not merely for its assumed socioeconomic benefits.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".