The ‘Final Say’ Is Not the Last Word. Gendered Patterns, Perceptions, and Processes in Household Decision Making Among Chinese Immigrant Couples in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central assumption of the ‘final‐say’ measure of conjugal dynamics is that reported decision‐making outcomes reveal gender inequality within the household; since power is defined as the ability to make decisions affecting the life of the family, the decider is often regarded as the one possessing more power or higher status. Qualitative data collected from in‐depth interviews with 16 married Chinese immigrant couples in Canada, however, problematize this assumption. Drawing on data from separate interviews with the spouses, I highlight three subtle ways in which gender inequality manifests itself. First, in a substantial proportion of households, wives rather than husbands made decisions about day‐to‐day expenses, even when the wife held no paid employment or earned less than the husband. Second, husbands consciously avoided making such decisions. Not only did interviewees perceive household expenditure decisions as ‘women’s business’ (nurenjia de shi), but these decisions were also trivialized by both male and female respondents. Third, interview data showed that there was an unequal distribution of power between spouses, even in the model of joint decision making, because wives tended to seek their husbands’ approval, especially for real estate purchases or high‐end consumption. The major findings from this study suggest that researchers’ conclusions about gender relations in the family may depend on the methods of data
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".