MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045355693

Money Talks: Diaspora Daughters-in-Law and Their Zimbabwean In-Laws

2013· article· en· W3045355693 on OpenAlexaff
Joy M. Chadya

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiasporaEmigrationLawPower (physics)Economic powerPoliticsPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based largely on oral histories and newspaper accounts this paper explores the diaspora-induced shifting relations of power between the in-laws and their daughter-in-law. I argue that periods of economic, socio-economic and political shifts/turmoil have worked to wax and/or wane the custom-bestowed power conferred on the in-laws particularly mothers-in-laws. The shifts in socio-economic power wrought by, emigration to neighboring countries in the sub-region and to far flung countries overseas, weakened the power the in-laws had over their daughters-in-law. This was further worsened by the fact that the diaspora-induced emigration also witnessed millions of women going to work and live abroad beyond the tentacles of their in-laws. That coupled with the fact that massive emigration from Zimbabwe ran concurrently with an unprecedented economic decline which made those who remained in Zimbabwe very much dependent on the diaspora for an economic lifeline, meant that the diaspora daughters-in-laws found themselves with immense power over their in-laws. This paper, thus, traces the impact of the physical distance between the daughters-in-law and their Zimbabwean-in-laws and their dollar power on their relationship with the in-laws who remained in the country of origin.

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)0.004
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issuesFrench-language works237,207