MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117183864 · doi:10.1080/13691050802572711

Have they really come out: gay men and their parents in Taiwan

2009· article· en· W2117183864 on OpenAlexaff
Tsen-Yung Wang, Herng‐Dar Bih, David J. Brennan

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomosexualityClosetComing outGender studiesFilial pietyMeaning (existential)EnlightenmentContext (archaeology)SociologyPsychologyHumanitiesTheologyPhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Chinese culture, filial piety for a son is closely linked to his capacity to produce an heir to ensure continuity of the paternal line. For Taiwanese gay men, coming out as gay may be interpreted as a refusal to produce a male heir and thus constitutes a major conflict within their family. This study explores how gay men in Taiwan come out to their parents within this cultural context. Thirty-two men in total were interviewed. Findings demonstrate that the decision to come out was often motivated by the son's perception of his parents' attitude towards homosexuality. Respondents worked hard to prepare for coming out and to minimize the risk and the impacts of the process, their report shows that some parents go through their own process of coming out and/or hiding in the closet after their gay son's coming out. Although many parents still see homosexuality as illness, some adopt alternative discourses to reinterpret the meaning of being gay as a spiritual path to eternal enlightenment or friendship. These findings imply sites of resistance to the privileged discourse of filial piety in constituting the experiences of coming out for Taiwanese gay men and their parents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 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

Citations88
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Health & SexualitySame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207