Determinants of Women’s Participation in Local Government Political Leadership: A case of the Lushoto District.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The different national and international organizations have channeled their resources and efforts for promoting women’s participation in politics. However, women’s participation in political leadership especially in the Local Government is low. The study was conducted to assess the determinants of women’s participation in Local Government Political Leadership in the Lushoto District. The specific objectives were to assess the drives influencing women’s participation, the attitudes of women toward participation, and the measures for ensuring effective women's participation in Local Government Political Leadership. The study adopted a cross-sectional research design, involving 100 women respondents. Purposive and simple random samplings were used. The individual survey and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were used in data collection with aid of questionnaires and a checklist of items respectively. The quantitative data were processed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) and qualitative were organized into themes. The descriptive statistical analyses, Likert Scale, Man-Whitney Test, and Binary Logistic regression were used to analyze quantitative data while content analysis was used in qualitative data. The findings reveal that 61% of respondents are not interested in politics. Also, monogamy and polygamy as types of marriage affects women’s involvement in political leadership at (P < 0.05). Findings on attitude’s reveal that 72% of respondents agreed that families restrict women’s participation on politics. The women’s attitudes on participation in politics differed significantly by types of education and employment at (P < 0.05). A quarter of respondents 15.5% cited financial support as a major measure to improve women’s participation in political leadership. The study recommends building women’s interest in politics participation through harnessing, rehabilitating, and directing resources on initiatives targeting women and politics, raising awareness of gender equality issues, financing and supporting women’s engagement in politics, and capacity-building on women’s leadership development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".