MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526374786 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.38.1.125

Marriage Type and Relative Spousal Power in Ghana: Changing Effects of Monogamy During Early Fertility Decline

2007· article· en· W1526374786 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurie F. DeRose

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityDemographyPolygynyWifeDemographic transitionAutonomyTotal fertility rateFamily planningPopulationSociologyPolitical scienceResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women in monogamous unions enjoyed more reproductive control than their polygynous counterparts prior to the onset of Ghana’s fertility transition. However, as the transition progressed, men’s relative influence grew, and it grew more in monogamous marriages than in polgynous ones. As men select into monogamy on the basis of lower (but not low) fertility desires, the pressure on their wives to fulfill those desires seems greater. In contrast, junior wives of polygynously married men may be under pressure to cease childbearing; even relatively high fertility goals have dropped enough that they seldom require expending the full reproductive potential of more than one wife. Differences by lineage type are modest, but the influence of matrilineal women decreased during early fertility transition. Even though lower fertility is commonly associated with reproductive autonomy, the subgroups of Ghanaian women having more influence in reproductive decision-making under traditional fertility regimes—the monogamous and also the matrilineal—lost relative power during early fertility transition.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207