Getting Out The Vote: Women'S Democratic Political Mobilization In Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the mobilization of women in Latin America prior to and during the transition to democracy has been well-studied, the mobilization of women in sub-Saharan Africa during this transition has received little attention. Yet, the study of women's mobilization within an emerging democratic state of sub-Saharan Africa would provide insight into how women may renegotiate their position in relation to transforming political structures, and how they may work to redefine their own rights. This article analyzes the case of Ghana to examine the mobilization ofwomen in sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, multivariate analyses of a survey of 621 women and in-depth interviews with thirty-three members of women's organizations are used to explore whether women's organizations are attempting to mobilize women to participate in the formal political process during the transition to democracy, and, if so, whether their efforts are successful. The results indicate that women's organizations view the electoral process as a means to mobilize women, that they have attempted to mobilize women to participate in elections, and that their mobilization efforts influenced the political behavior of women. Implications of these findings for our understanding of women's mobilization in sub-Saharan Africa in comparison to those in Latin America are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".