MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1189471923 · doi:10.1163/15692108-12341341

Patriarchy, Spirituality, and Power

2015· article· en· W1189471923 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Kathryn Cleveland

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican and Asian Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatriarchyMilitarismSpiritualityPoliticsGender studiesSociologyPower (physics)PietyAsian studiesPolitical scienceLawChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reorganization of Akan society in the early 1300’s-1400, the subsequent formation of Asante in 1701, and the introduction of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the former Gold Coast created new social, economic, and political conditions which initiated a change in the status, mobility, and role of women. Societal restrictions were placed upon female title-holders through language and spiritual taboos which prohibited them from sacred spaces and shrines. Akan cosmology and spirituality were monopolized as a tool for the acquisition of authority. A desire for the accumulation of wealth and power reconceptualised masculine identities as military victories began to be associated with manliness and honor. Patriarchal systems of governance were later established, specifically the institutions of chieftaincy and kingship, which were key contributors to the deterioration of political positions for females, for example, the Queen Mother. As the dominant political organizations, these institutions have seemingly functioned to shape the experiences of Ghanaian women throughout the history of Asante. This paper argues that the significance of women in the realm of politics and cultural affairs in Akan society were effectively lessened as a result of patriarchy, the manipulation of spirituality, and the influence of militaristic ideals.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican and Asian StudiesSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207