MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150947946 · doi:10.1177/0021909614530381

Breaking Through the Glass Ceiling: Strategies to Enhance the Advancement of Women in Ghana’s Public Service

2014· article· en· W2150947946 on OpenAlexaff
Frank L. K. Ohemeng, Augustina Adusah-Karikari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asian and African Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlass ceilingCivil serviceCeiling (cloud)Service (business)sortChristian ministryGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsPublic serviceBusinessPolitical sciencePublic administrationEngineeringMarketingLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ghanaian women have made, and continue to make, considerable progress on their journey to the upper echelons of the decision-making institutions of the country. However, the overall number of women in decision-making positions, especially in the civil service, is distressingly small. At the end of 2011, for example, of 36 positions available only six were filled by women, as chief directors of a ministry. What is being witnessed in the civil service, then, is what has been described in the academic literature and popular press as the glass ceiling. This paper examines what has been and is being done by government, and what sort of strategies will be necessary to deal with the problem. The questions addressed are what are the strategies; and how effective are they in breaking down the glass ceiling that appears to exist in the civil service and which prevents women from progressing into senior management. What is the way forward – or up – in breaking through the glass ceiling?

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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Asian and African StudiesSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207