THE DICHOTOMY ABOUT TRADITION AND POLITICS: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS ON GHANAIAN DEMOCRACY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article provides an in-depth exploration of the complex relationship between traditional leaders and the democratic processes in Ghana. It begins by tracing the historical roots of traditional leadership in Ghana, highlighting the evolution of their roles and their historical involvement in politics. The article then transitions into an examination of the contemporary roles of these leaders in Ghanaian society, their political affiliations, and their influence on the political landscape. The core of the article is a critical analysis of the impact of traditional leaders on Ghana's democratic processes. Through a series of case studies, it scrutinizes the ways in which these leaders have shaped political outcomes, discussing both the potential benefits and drawbacks of their involvement in politics. The article concludes with an exploration of the challenges and opportunities presented by the participation of traditional leaders in politics, offering suggestions for managing their influence to ensure the continued growth and stability of Ghana's democracy. This comprehensive review contributes to the understanding of the intricate dynamics between tradition and politics in Ghana, shedding light on the role of traditional leaders as influential stakeholders in the country's democratic landscape and their impact on socio economic development as a whole.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".