The Changes in Mainland Chinese Families During the Social Transition: A Critical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
China has seen a rapid urbanization and industrialization, and a dramatic improvement in the quality of life and living conditions since its economic reform started in 1980s. The changes in the social and economic context, and implementation of One Child Family Policy led to noticeable changes in family structure and relationship. While traditional extended families exist, there occur multiple forms of Chinese families, i.e. nuclear families, single-parent families, DINK families, the single person household and the cohabitant household. Some scholars view the changes as the deterioration of marriage and family values and growing emphasis on individualism. The current paper critically analyzes the major studies of Chinese families to understand the changes in family relationship, structure and values over the past 30 years. Three questions are asked: Has Chinese family become nuclear in structure and diverse in form? Have Chinese shifted their values from collective interests to individual interests? Has Chinese marriage become less important? The extended family is the dominant functional family form in which children and elderly are taken care of while nuclear family is the most common form. Single-person family, singleparent family, remarried family and childless family are a fraction of the population. Families continue to prioritize collective interest over individual interest. Overall Chinese value marriage. The first marriage is postponed. Premarital sex is less stigmatized, but cohabitation remains marginalized. Contemporary family is fluid and dynamic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".