Modified extended households: co-residence, headship and household resource management in the context of labour out-migration in rural Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter illustrates how the notion of co-residence, headship and resource management of a household have been modified by the phenomenon of labour out-migration in Nepal. The concept of household is largely used in the studies of home economics, resource management, livelihood and family care. In general, a household is a unit formed by family members or a combination of family and non-family members, with roots in the institution of marriage. Traditionally, the household is considered a co-residential unit, with a household head, and taking care of the day-to-day resource management and primary needs of its members. However, the notions of family-based unit, co-residence and management of resources by a functional household head are challenged by various living arrangements, livelihood opportunities and changing modes of production that are caused by the phenomenon of labour out-migration in the recent times. Based on survey, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions carried out in a village in eastern Nepal, this chapter argues that households are not restricted to the conventional boundary of living-together. Like resident members, the non-resident members also have a great influence in household resource management and can even act as a household head at a distance, thus modifying the meaning of ‘household’. We perhaps need to understand it as ‘modified-extended-household’ where a household acts as an arena of resident and non-resident members who are engaged in continuous interaction and communication for the wellbeing of its members.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".