Gender-transformative social protection: returning to the feminist debates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concept of gender transformative change brings yet another policy objective and aspiration into the field of public policy—one that reflects a growing desire for more ambitious public policy. This aspiration, while proliferating in social policy and the specific sub-field of social protection in recent years, has been embraced with little consensus and critical reflection on the intended object and processes of change. Various conceptualizations exist, shaped by different disciplines and institutional perspectives. This article begs a moment of pause to critically examine the use of the term “gender-transformative” in the social protection literature, including its emergence, ontological roots, and evolution within the scholarship. Through a comprehensive snowball literature review, we show that gender-transformative social protection often remains vaguely defined, is cast as addressing gender inequality and social structures at the micro level, and lacks clarity on what it concretely takes to achieve gender-transformative change. To gain conceptual clarity and move beyond rhetorical commitments, we suggest engaging more deeply with established and robust feminist scholarship in Gender and Development, including debates on reproductive and productive labor, gender norms, and power and agency.
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 | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.110 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| 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".