MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999240704

Child marriage in Ghana: assessing the legal implementation of child rights standards

2023· dissertation· en· W6999240704 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild marriageHuman rightsCharterConvention on the Rights of the ChildDomestic violenceChild protectionMarriage lawChild labourWelfare
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child marriage is a union in which one or both parties in the marriage is below 18 years. Although the prevalence of child marriage is low in Ghana as compared to other countries in Africa, the rate of child marriage in the Northern regions of Ghana is high. Child marriage has a dire consequence on the victims, the country and the world at large. Child marriage threatens the physical, emotional/psychological and economic well-being of its victims. Poverty, traditions, religion, customary practices and peer influence are primary drivers of early marriage in Ghana. Girls who are at risk of being married, girls in union and girls who are no longer married suffer physical and verbal abuse from their husbands and husbands’ family, as well as sexual and emotional abuse. Child marriage violates the rights of its victims. Ghana was the first to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child and has ratified the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. My aim in this study was to examine human right treaties in order to identify right standards to which Ghana has committed to, focusing on standards that are relevant to girls before, during and after marriage to support their physical, emotional/psychological and economic well-being. I then examined four legal statues – the Constitution, Children’s Act, Criminal Code, and Domestic Violence Act - to determine whether the right standards are upheld in law. The findings revealed that most of the right standards have the legal support of at least one of the four legal statutes examined. There are two primary limitations of the study. First, there are other legal statutes I could have examined that might implement the right standards. Second, if a standard is not upheld in law, it could be implemented through policies and services, which I did not examine in this study. Further research is needed into policies, programs and services that can promote the implementation of these rights and laws. I also recommend a comparative study on the performance of Ghana to other countries on child marriage, child welfare policies and programs.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawFrench-language works237,207