MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401259704 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340109

The 30% Gender Quota Law in Sierra Leone: A Game Changer for Women’s Access to Parliament?

2024· article· en· W4401259704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Victoria Melkisedeck Lihiru

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSierra leoneParliamentPolitical scienceGeneral electionRepresentation (politics)Proportional representationElection lawLawEmpowermentPublic administrationSociologyDemocracyPoliticsSocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The June 2023 elections in Sierra Leone occurred against the backdrop of amendments to the Public Elections Act ( pea ), the enactment of the Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Act ( gewe ), and a switch from the First Past the Post ( fptp ) electoral system to the Proportional Representation ( pr ) electoral system. For the first time in Sierra Leone’s history, law reforms, among other things, introduced a 30% gender quota rule for parliamentary and councillorship seats. After the 2023 elections, women won 41 out of the 135 elected parliamentary seats, increasing the percentage of women parliamentarians from 12.32% in the 2018 elections to 30.37%. Despite the increase, there have been concerns about the overall effectiveness of the gender quota rule in facilitating women’s access to parliamentary seats. The gender quota rule is set below 50%, is not accompanied by the candidates’ ranking order, does not apply in the election of 14 paramount chiefs, and operates within poor data desegregation of the candidates. This article highlights the required reforms to address the identified legal challenges to facilitate women’s equal access to representation in Sierra Leone’s Parliament.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207