MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042628160 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.884210

(Trans)Gender Role Expectations and Child Care in Samoa

2014· article· en· W2042628160 on OpenAlexafffund
Doug P. VanderLaan, Lanna J. Petterson, Ryan W. Mallard, Paul L. Vasey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNephew and nieceSamoanPsychologyDemographySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Samoan transgendered males are known as fa'afafine. Although Samoan women are characterized as the primary child care providers, fa'afafine report elevated willingness to invest in nieces and nephews compared to men and women. We hypothesized that Samoans hold unique transgender role expectations such that fa'afafine are expected to invest more toward nieces and nephews compared to others. Participants (N = 214) included Samoan men (30.23 years ±8.19), women (30.00 years ±10.93), and fa'afafine (30.25 years ±7.45). For a variety of child care activities, participants nominated men, women, fa'afafine, or all three of these categories of individuals as responsible for investing toward nieces and nephews. Participants also reported how frequently their family members asked them to perform these activities for nieces and nephews. Responsibility for performing these activities was typically designated for women; men and women viewed fa'afafine as least responsible. Men's, but not fa'afafine's, family members asked them to allocate investment toward nieces and nephews more frequently. These findings are not consistent with the transgender role expectation hypothesis. Discussion details how the findings contribute to the literature on child care in Samoa. Alternate hypotheses for explaining why fa'afafine report elevated willingness to invest in nieces and nephews are considered.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207