Obstacles facing women's quota for election of women in the parliamentary elections- A sociological Field Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify obstacles facing women's quota in motivating voters to elect women in the parliamentary elections, and identify the extent of participation of Jordanian women in the parliamentary elections .The researcher applied the comprehensive social survey method which included (128) who became candidates for parliamentary elections in 2010. He has prepared a questionnaire consisting of three main categories and included (28) items,. After analyzing the study, the researcher concludes the following results : - A quarter of candidates does not support the women's quota, and three quarters, are in favor of the quota, calling for performing more efforts to change it for the better. - Among the important reasons of opposing the support of female candidates are: parents and relatives conservative attitude, competition among women, as well as society's view of the MP as being facilitator of services. The number of votes obtained by all female candidates are (73775) votes out of the total (951510) voters , with a percentage of (7.75%) . The votes obtained by the winners was (20,230), of whom a candidate win by a direct election and got (3792) votes . where the votes obtained by winners according to quota (16,438) votes are (1.7%) of the total voters , which is a very low percentage. Recommendations are: - Changing the existing electoral laws through changing the methods of calculating the female quota . the winning member shall be the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in the governorate and not in the constituency . - Coordination among women community. - women self-support . Candidate participation in training courses and programs in the management of electoral campaigns, and communication skills with the voters. Involvement in political parties. Financial support to the candidates . Increase the effectiveness of female MPs in the parliament. these recommendations form a trial to support the women quota experience and to get additional seats outside the quota by direct ballot .
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".