MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556832292 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.41.3.415

Marriage Pattern of Immigrants in Sweden

2010· article· en· W1556832292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alireza Behtoui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogamyImmigrationEthnic groupDemographic economicsMarriage marketDemographySociologyGeographyGender studiesPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is (a) to depict the general pattern of partnership of immigrants and their children in Sweden and their position in the Swedish “marriage market” relative to that of natives; (b) to estimate probability of out-marriage of individuals from different immigrant groups with natives; and (c) to examine ‘exchange theory’ in relation to partnerships between immigrants and natives. Using a register data-set provided by Statistics Sweden, I find that individuals in this sample tend to choose men and women who are like themselves in socio-economic background, income, educational level, and position in the labour market. Regarding “immigrant background,” the results indicate a tendency towards “ethnic endogamy.” Results also show that men and women with origins in countries outside northwest Europe and North America (ONW) have a lower probability of having a native partner than others. Empirical results also provide some support for “exchange theory,” that is, members of the ONW immigrant group with native partners have compensated for their “tribal stigma of race/ethnicity” with their age and educational differences. They tend to be younger and better-educated than their native partners.

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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207