The Gendered Politics of Remittances in Ghanaian Transnational Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Using interviews with Ghanaian women in Toronto and members of their families in Ghana, this article extends the literature on remittances by drawing on insights from feminist scholarship on migration to investigate the social dynamics of remittances in transnational families. The growing literature on migration and remittances focuses on large‐scale quantitative analyses of data on remittances. Less explored is how gender and kinship bonds (particularly, matrilineage affiliation) influence complex decision‐making processes underlying remittances. I argue for a conceptualization of remittances as constituting relationships between senders and receivers that are continually being negotiated and contested in and across different places. Specifically, I focus on the cultural and gender‐specific ways in which women and their families negotiate remittances, highlighting dilemmas that transnational families experience when they encounter contradictory aspects of remittances. Despite their material realities and struggles in Canada, the women in this study remitted to fulfill gendered obligations in highly contested and negotiated contexts. Their remittances were important, however, for the production and reproduction of families and households that are structured transnationally. While this case exhibits specific features that are particular to Ghanaian migration and transnationalism, it highlights how broader social dynamics underlying remittances operate at multiple scales and intersect with differential social and economic structures and agency in producing meanings of remittances.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".