MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1953591710 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.33.4.495

Perceptions of Arranged Marriages by Young Pakistani Muslim Women Living in a Western Society

2002· article· en· W1953591710 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Arshia U. Zaidi, Muhammad Shuraydi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymbolic interactionismInteractionismSociologyIdeologyGender studiesPerceptionPerspective (graphical)GratificationSocial psychologyPsychologySocial sciencePoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploration of attitudes towards arranged marriages were examined from the perspective of second generation Pakistani Muslim women living in a western society. Symbolic Interactionism and Interpretive Interactionism were the theoretical and methodological considerations respectively. Twenty single females, between the ages of 16 to 30 years, living in Canada or the United States, were interviewed utilizing an unstructured schedule interview. The main research question addressed the role of western values in influencing mate-selection practices. Other questions centred around the Pakistani women’s definition of the situation with regards to arranged marriages.***The results indicated that even though Pakistani parents, especially fathers, are perceived to be resistant to cultural change, western values are playing a determining role in the process of mate-selection for second generation Pakistani Muslim females. Most Pakistani women are adapting and modifying attitudes which reflect the ideas of western ideology of greater self-expression and personal gratification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations80
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207