MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463376845 · doi:10.1177/0021909616654298

Political Parties’ Campaign Financing in Ghana’s Fourth Republic: A Contribution to the Discourse

2016· article· en· W2463376845 on OpenAlex
Peter Arthur

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asian and African Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Influence and Politics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)DemocracyPoliticsSanctionsCompetition (biology)AccountabilityPolitical economyEconomicsPromotion (chess)Political sciencePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The period from 1992 saw Ghana, under pressure from both internal and external sources, embark on the transition to democratic rule. Despite the strides, an issue that has the potential to undermine Ghana’s liberal democratic credentials has centred on the process of political party financing. The purpose of this paper is to analyse how the existing political party financing system in Ghana is negatively impacting on electoral competition and the country’s democratic process. Drawing on secondary sources, this paper shows that, given that it is political resources that drive party vibrancy and competitiveness, a level playing field in terms of public financing of political parties can help in electoral competition and the promotion of the democratic process in Ghana. However, the importance of transparency and accountability, as well as a legal framework that monitors, denounces, sanctions and punishes abuse in the use of public funds, would be crucial if success is to be attained.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.319 · 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