Does financial autonomy imply reproductive and sexual autonomy? Evidence from urban poor women in Accra, Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the association between financial autonomy and three other measures of autonomy – sexual autonomy, perceived reproductive autonomy and actual reproductive autonomy in Ga-Mashie, Accra, Ghana. From anthropological accounts, the financial independence of women from this community, coupled with unique living arrangements, have resulted in them being independent and autonomous. The analytical sample consists of 172 women who were in union at the time of the survey. Binary logistic and ordered logistic regression models ran between financial autonomy and the other measures of autonomy, and controlling for relevant socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the women, reveal that in this context, financial autonomy does not have the perceived effect of increasing autonomy in the three other spheres. Rather, measures that hint at egalitarianism and close marital relationships – namely, marital power, agreement with partners about reproductive issues and marital duration – are more significantly associated with sexual and reproductive autonomy. We conclude that, coupled with schemes to increase the financial autonomy of women, in this context, other measures aimed at improving marital relationships should be explored and encouraged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".