MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144708579 · doi:10.1017/s0021932002000135

PREFERENCE FOR A FIRST-BORN BOY IN WESTERN SOCIETIES

2002· article· en· W2144708579 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques D. Marleau, Jean‐François Saucier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biosocial Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirlPreferenceDemographyMedicinePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPediatricsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies in the last 45 years have shown that women prefer a boy to a girl for their first-born child, suggesting that this preference is universal in Western societies. A careful examination of these studies reveals, however, that the subjects were often women who were not pregnant and/or students. A review of sixteen studies with first-time-pregnant women showed that in most cases the opposite was true, namely, that a girl was desired more often than a boy, especially during the last two decades (from 1981 to 1996). Data concerning expectant fathers, however, indicate that they prefer a boy rather than a girl. A preference for a boy first was also observe for both non-expectant males and females. Women's preference for a male child decreased and men's preference increased slightly when the two sub-periods (before 1980vs after 1981) were compared. A difference between men and women is, however, evident whatever the sub-period: men more often prefer a boy than women. These findings suggest that something specific about being pregnant is related to the preference for a girl first.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations50
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biosocial ScienceSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207