Pathways for Integrating the Fulbe into Ghana’s National Development Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ghana remains a stable country guided by the tenets of democratic rule. The 1992 Constitution confers basic fundamental human rights on all Ghanaians irrespective of creed, ethnicity and gender. However, the Fulbe ethnic group is widely discriminated against in the country. Their political rights to inclusion in governance systems are abused with impunity. Their access to health and education is curtailed by various barriers. They face huge barriers in accessing land, water and pasture for their livelihoods. They are stereotyped in all fronts as armed robbers, rapists and cattle rustlers. Their right to cultural inclusion has been threatened by behaviours and sanctions which prevent them from openly manifesting their music and dance in annual festivals. Yet the resilience of the over one million Fulbe in Ghana cannot be ignored. In the midst of political, social, economic and cultural exclusion and human rights violations they remain a force to reckon with contributing to the food and nutrition security of Ghana and a functioning public service. This paper draws on key informant interviews and relevant literature to diagnose the drivers of the Fulbe exclusion in Ghana. It entails an in-depth analysis of the specific barriers to their political, social, economic and cultural integration in Ghana. The paper concludes that, the review and enforcement of human rights legalizations, implementation of inclusive education policies and intensification of zero tolerance for hate speech and stereotypes against the Fulbe are key recommendations to consider.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".