MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765682448 · doi:10.1177/0192513x16686137

Women’s Experiences of Intimate Partner Economic Abuse in the Eastern Region of Ghana

2016· article· en· W2765682448 on OpenAlexafffund
Alice Pearl Sedziafa, Eric Y. Tenkorang, Adobea Yaa Owusu, Yuji Sano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDomestic violenceDenialEconomic independencePsychological abuseEconomic securityPhysical abuseSexual abusePsychologySocioeconomicsPoison controlSuicide preventionEconomic growthMedicineSociologyDevelopment economicsEconomicsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite its prevalence, intimate partner economic abuse has received less scholarly attention in sub-Saharan Africa. Using qualitative enquiry, this study describes the experiences of economic abuse among 18 women in the Eastern Region of Ghana. Economic abuse occurred in a variety of forms, including extortion, denial of income-earning activity, and attempts to deny women’s economic independence and financial self-sufficiency. Findings point to the pervasiveness of economic abuse among both high- and low-income women. While economic dependency among nonworking women was associated with sexual violence, working and independent women experienced physical and emotional violence on questioning intimate partner’s economic abuse.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207