Lineage Heterogamy and Intimate Partner Violence Among Women in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined heterogamies based on lineage and their relationship with intimate partner violence (IPV) in Ghana. We used nationally representative cross-sectional data collected in 2017 from 1,789 women aged 18 years and older to build random-effect logit models and examine this relationship. We hypothesized that women in heterogamous unions based on lineage are more likely to experience IPV than those in homogamous unions. Our findings provided weak to no support for the hypothesis. The heterogamy hypothesis held partially for sexual, psychological, and economic violence: patrilineal women married to matrilineal partners were more likely to experience sexual, psychological, and economic violence than matrilineal women with matrilineal partners until their relationship dynamics were controlled. This means variations in IPV between homogamous and heterogamous couples were largely spurious. The biggest and most significant differences were found for homogamous couples. Unlike heterogamous couples, differences in the IPV experiences of homogamous couples persisted after accounting for their socioeconomic characteristics and relationship dynamics. Specifically, patrilineal women with patrilineal male partners were significantly more likely to experience sexual, psychological, and economic violence than matrilineal women with matrilineal male partners. We conclude there is a complex relationship between lineage, socioeconomic status, and other relationship factors in Ghanaian women's vulnerability to IPV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".