MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223670579 · doi:10.1080/21632324.2015.1083723

Cross-region migration of brides and gender relations in a daughter deficit context

2015· article· en· W2223670579 on OpenAlexaff
Sharada Srinivasan

Bibliographic record

VenueMigration and Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowryTamilCasteEndogamyGender studiesPrivilege (computing)Context (archaeology)DaughterWifeMarriage marketPatriarchyKinshipSociologyArranged MarriageEthnographyPolitical scienceDemographic economicsGeographyPopulationDemographyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years there is a growing interest in the phenomenon of across-region marriages and the wellbeing of women in such marriages in female deficit regions in countries such as India and China. Several men in district Namakkal in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu which has had a long history of daughter elimination are currently experiencing a delay in marriage due to female deficit, educational and occupational incompatibility, and women’s changing marriage preferences, with many bringing brides from outside the region. Women who are priced out of the marriage market in Kerala, a state where women occupy a relatively better status, are also marrying these men. Based on ethnographic fieldwork, this paper argues that the experiences of cross-region brides are not idiosyncratic or ad hoc but are shaped by and embedded within the intersection of caste, class, gender and kinship. In particular the gender contexts in both the place of origin and the place women are married into, affect their wellbeing. While such unions have the potential to create a win-win situation for both parties and challenge practices such as caste endogamy and dowry, they also reinforce unequal gender norms that maintain male privilege.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMigration and DevelopmentSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207