MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1849009696 · doi:10.25336/p6ng60

Determinants of women's non-family work in Ghana and Zimbabwe

2003· article· en· W1849009696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kofi D. Benefo, Vijayan K. Pillai

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinshipFertilityWork (physics)Developing countryDemographic economicsInformal sectorEconomic growthSurvey data collectionFormal educationSocioeconomicsSociologyPopulationEconomicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One objective of this paper is to evaluate the determinants of female non-family work in Africa. Selected labor force participation theories are tested using demographic and health survey data. The traditional kinship-oriented family organization in Africa, along with high fertility, have long been seen as factors that constrain women’s participation in the labor force, particularly in seeking formal sector employment. We use demographic and health survey data from two African countries, Ghana and Zimbabwe. Education emerges as the most important determinant of non-family work. Even if female education levels increase, single women may not gain easy entry into the informal economy managed by kinship-based social networks. A large proportion of these educated women may not find jobs if the formal economy does not expand. Results from Ghana and Zimbabwe are compared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207