MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169682238 · doi:10.1177/0020715206065379

Early 40s and Still Unmarried

2006· article· en· W2169682238 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lindy Williams, Philip Guest, Anchalee Varangrat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)Socioeconomic statusDemographic economicsPopulationDemographyQualitative propertyGeographyPsychologyGender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyCensusEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many parts of the world, including Thailand, marriage is being delayed and increasing proportions of women and men will never marry. The results reported in this article are based on microdata samples of the 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 Thai censuses, supplemented by focus group data. The increases in proportions never-married that had been observed between 1970 and 1990 continued through the decade of the 1990s. However, unlike earlier decades, changes in the 1990s were much greater for men than for women. Much of the difference in proportions never-married among women can probably be explained by changing socioeconomic composition of the population, but this may be less true for men. There is some evidence of a marriage squeeze for highly educated women and for men with the least formal schooling. Qualitative data suggest that while marriage may no longer be necessary, there remain abundant social pressures, particularly for women to formalize unions. Most young people still expect to get married at some point, if a suitable partner can be found, since the positive aspects of marriage still seem to outweigh the negative ones. Financial circumstances remain very important, however, in ascertaining whether one is ready or able to marry.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207