Social Perceptions of Siblings’ Sexual Composition: Evidence from Portuguese Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores sibling relationships among Portuguese youth, focusing on the importance of gender and sibling sexual composition in three specific analytical domains: (a) the social meanings and perceptions of sibling relationships and their impact on daily life practices; (b) parents’ differential treatment of sons and daughters and its implication for the well-being of brothers and sisters within the sibling group, and; (c) the gender determinants of care-giving for elderly parents. The study is based on focus groups and semi-structured interviews involving 47 Portuguese men and women, with an average age of 24 years. The results show that gender relations and the sexual composition of siblings have a significant impact on sibling relationships. Same-sex siblings are perceived as having more harmonious and cooperative relationships than mixed-sex siblings, regardless of age and birth order. Parents’ differential treatment of sons and daughters, whether it reproduces or deconstructs traditional gender roles, influences the well-being of youths and affects the way brothers and sisters envisage how care-giving tasks for elderly parents will be shared. Most youths envisage an egalitarian distribution of care-giving, although sisters are still regarded as the main care providers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".