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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".