MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W92253992 · doi:10.5206/cie-eci.v34i2.9061

La guerre et le génocide de 1994: Impacts et nouveaux espoirs sur l'éducation des jeunes filles au Rwanda

2005· article· fr· W92253992 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Donatille Mujawamariya, Susan Judith Ship

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative and International Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentHumanitiesPolitical scienceGender equitySociologyGender studiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A travers un cadre theorique femme/genre et developpement, les auteures menent une discussion sur la sous-scolarisation des filles au Rwanda. Elles explorent ensuite comment les inegalites de genre interagissent avec des inegalites socioeconomiques et regionales pour entraver l'acces equitable et la participation des filles it l'education formelle au cours des periodes coloniale, apres l'independance et postgenocide. Dans la suite, elles montrent comment les organisations de femmes jouent, actuellement, un role crucial dans la promotion de l'empowerment des filles et l'equite de genre en education a travers la conscientisation a la problematique de genre, des programmes et activites innovateurs. The authors discuss, through a women/gender and development theoretical framework, the under-schooling of girls in Rwanda. Then they explore how gender inequity interacts with socio-economic and regional inequities to establish barriers against girls in their equal access and participation to formal education during the colonial, the independence, and post-genocide periods. They show then how women's organizations currently play a crucial role in promoting women's empowerment and gender equity in education through conscientization of the gender problems, and of programmes and innovative activities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative and International EducationSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207