In Inquiry into Commitments to Women’s Empowerment in Development through the Lens of Social Impact Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UN Sustainability Goal #5, the empowerment of women and children, is a ubiquitous presence in the vernacular of international development projects. The Goal’s targets and indicators help to frame projects by way of structure and credibility. However, multiple international indices indicate a global stall and even regional backsliding in progress in the advancement of women’s rights. This is a particularly worrisome trend for development in the mining sector, a sector well documented to, historically, have had disproportionately negative outcomes for women and children, particularly in conflict contexts. This two-part mixed-method study, informed by concepts of Bibb Latané’s Social Impact Theory (SIT), It probes the sector’s normative and performative language and probes two Global Affairs Canada-funded mining development projects to illustrate how gender initiatives like participatory gender audits and equity training, are often co-opted to increase their favourability and to secure future transactional outcomes. The first component of the study is a survey study using the Mongolia Perceptions of Gender Equity Questionnaire consisting of 20 items inquiring the gap that exists between institutional sensitivity and individual employee sensitivity to concepts of gender equity at the Ministry of Mining and Heavy Industry in Mongolia. The second component of this dissertation, based on the document analysis, illustrates a similar gap in sensitivity to gendered impacts of the extractive industry. Through a quantitative analysis of operations and governance documents I demonstrate that there is a sizeable gap between the stated intent of various instruments and protocols to engage in equitable operations and mining governance and women’s issues seldom go beyond making vague references to broader, cross-cutting issues. In keeping with more recent developments in Dynamic Social Impact Theory advanced by Mutz (2002), Redlawsk and Civettini (2010) and Levitan and Visser (2009), the study concludes with a set of recommendations around the ways that international development might better design and develop gender equity training.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".