MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Challenges of Single Ordained Women Ministers in the Presbyterian Church of Ghana

2013· article· en· W1518881190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grace Sintim Adasi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindsetSociologyGender studiesFace (sociological concept)PerceptionStereotype (UML)LawPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Presbyterian Church of Ghana every woman is expected to marry because within the Ghanaian culture marriage is believed to confer on a woman a high degree of respectability. Again, women who decide to remain single for one reason or the other are looked upon with suspicion that they sleep around with men. In some instances some men take sexual advantage of the single women. Even if a woman is ordained and manages her affairs successfully without a man the negative perceptions on single women affect them and their work as ministers. Indeed such negative perception on single women has so much affected the mindset of the congregational members of the Presbyterian church of Ghana that some congregations feel so reluctant to accept ordained women ministers as their congregational leaders. Even the single ordained women ministers who lead congregations feel uncomfortable working so closely with their male counterparts for fear that they will be accused of sleeping around with men. This paper examines the challenges that ordained women ministers face in the Presbyterian church of Ghana. It examines how the existing structure which in my opinion is very patriarchal helps in maintaining such stereotype of ordained single women in the church. Again, the cultural, religious and moral bases for such stereotyping of single women are examined.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207