MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308214613 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.53.3.050

“She Thinks I’ll Marry Her, but I Won’t”: The Gendered Conceptualisation of Consensual Unions in Ghana

2022· article· en· W4308214613 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rosemary Obeng-Hinneh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnitary stateArgument (complex analysis)Context (archaeology)Gender studiesSociologyEthnic groupGeneral partnershipSet (abstract data type)Social psychologyPolitical sciencePsychologyLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large body of work on consensual unions suggests a unitary household conception of consensual unions either as a precursor or an alternative to marriage. Another set of literature, though quite scanty, reveals gender differences in experiences in consensual unions. This paper adds to the argument that attitudes towards intimate relationships and marriage can be gendered. As a result, one partner may hope for the conversion of a consensual union to marriage whilst the other would not. The paper interrogates the ways in which the socio-cultural context of Ghana influences the gendered attitudes towards consensual unions as a form of intimate partnership and creates a sense of ‘commitment phobia’ particularly for men. To do this, thirty-one people with varying ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds were purposively sampled. In-depth interviews were conducted separately for the individual partners. The paper concludes that contrary to the unitary household conception of consensual unions, there is a gendered conceptualisation of these unions where women are more likely to think of consensual unions as a precursor to marriage while men think of it as an alternative to marriage.

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)0.002
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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207