MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981873058 · doi:10.1525/sop.2012.55.4.557

How Did Work Attitudes Change in Reform-Era China? Age, Period, and Cohort Effects on Work Centrality

2012· article· en· W1981873058 on OpenAlex
Soyoung Kwon, Markus H. Schafer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Perspectives · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentralityChinaPeriod (music)CohortWork (physics)Cohort effectDemographic economicsDemographyCohort studyPsychologyGeographySociologyEconomicsMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a four-wave cross-sectional repeated dataset spanning 17 years (World Value Survey, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2007), this research examines changes in work centrality in China during the period of economic reform. The article utilizes a recently developed methodology, hierarchical age-period-cohort (HAPC) models, to disentangle the effects of age, period, and cohort. Results show that age has a curvilinear effect: work centrality increases up to middle age, then levels off. For period effects, there is a downward trend in work centrality in China between the 1990s and 2000s that is explained by economic growth. Though overall cohort effects are marginally significant, the study reveals that work centrality tends to be high among the “revolutionary socialism generation” but lower for the “post-800 generation.”

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.

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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.324 · 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