Gender, land grabbing and agrarian livelihoods: contradictory gendered outcomes of land transactions in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a multi-method research design that employs a triangulation of fieldwork data, including focus group discussions (n = 35) and key informant interviews (n = 5), this paper examines the intervening role of gender in the differentiated distribution of harms and benefits from large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs). Employing Feminist Political Ecology (FPE) as the analytical framework, this study examines how varying positionalities such as marital status, tenure systems, and local power dynamics shape women’s encounters with LSLAs. Our findings reveal that while patriarchal structures continue to restrict women’s control over land resources, the economic opportunities arising from projects in the Central and Volta regions of Ghana have enhanced some women’s financial independence and decision-making power within their households. This shift, however, has created tensions, as men perceive these changes as a challenge to traditional gender roles. By interrogating these complex gendered experiences, this study enriches the FPE framework, highlighting how intersecting positionalities influence resource access and control in agrarian communities.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".