MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529091141 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.33.3.377

Dual Legal System, Basotho Culture and Marital Stability

2002· article· en· W2529091141 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
I.V.O. Modo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSociologyProclamationChampionGender studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The typical Basotho community in Lesotho believes in customary marriages. However, through proclamation 74 of 1871, Christian marriage was recognized as marriage at par with the Basotho Customary marriage. Today Lesotho has a dual legal system: the British or received Roman Dutch Law from the Cape Colony and the Basotho Customary Law. Theoretically the two legal systems have produced two different sets of cultural groups. Those who adhere to customary laws are traditional, mainly rural in outlook, ‘governable’ and enjoy more marriage stability. Here, women are muted group (Ardener, 1988). In marriage the man and his people enjoy uxorial and the genetricial rights of the women (Mitchell, 1957). Marriage problems are mainly settled amicably out of court, and property is inherited with ease through primogeniture. ‘.The adherents of the civil law on the other hand are mainly urban and educated men and women; who ideally are divorced from the traditions and customs of Basotho. Marriages are fragile and one out of every three marriages ends in divorce. This cultural group liyes a permissive life; cohabit and their women champion ‘Beijing’ malefemale equality more than other Southern African women. The writer observes the excesses of the modem Basotho, and also the timidity of the traditional group; and hopes for a blend of culture which will lead to a more humane socio-cultural development of Lesotho in this new millennium.

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)0.001
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 score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207