MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117360752 · doi:10.1007/s42650-025-00107-6

The Roots of Equality?: Marital Age Homogamy and Female Agency in Lesotho, 1880-Present

2025· article· en· W7117360752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stuart Gietel-Basten

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong University of Science and Technology
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)EmpowermentProxy (statistics)NarrativeMarital statusSociocultural evolutionPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Age homogamy is an established proxy for female empowerment in historical contexts. This study investigates the long-term trajectory of gender relations in Lesotho, a country that today ranks among the highest in Africa for gender equality. We ask: are its characteristically low levels of marital age hypergamy a recent development or a historical feature? Analyzing parish registers from 1880 to 1939 and comparing to contemporary Demographic and Health Surveys (2004–2014), we demonstrate a striking continuity in spousal age gaps and the derived Girlpower-Index over more than a century. After excluding widows, divorcées, and custom marriages to ensure a consistent sample, our analysis of 3,575 historical records reveals distributions and index values nearly identical to those of the 21st century. This finding challenges narratives that attribute contemporary African marriage patterns solely to recent modernization. The persistence of the Girlpower-Index suggests a possible deep-seated pattern of female agency, indicating that the foundations of Lesotho’s modern gender profile may have been established well before the contemporary era. This study underscores the critical importance of historical demographic data for contextualizing contemporary social structures in Africa.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ IssuesFrench-language works237,207