“She Thinks I’ll Marry Her, but I Won’t”: The Gendered Conceptualisation of Consensual Unions in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".