MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308419321 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.43.3.419

Behind and Beyond Hajnal’s Line: Families and Family Life in Slovenia

2012· article· en· W2308419321 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alenka Švab, Tanja Rener, Metka Kuhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily lifeWestern europeDe factoFertilityDemographic economicsDeveloped countrySociologyEconomic growthPolitical sciencePopulationDevelopment economicsDemographyEconomicsSocioeconomicsLawEuropean union

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By tracing the history and characteristics of family life in Slovenia in the last 60 years, the article attempts to shed light on family and demographic trends that are quite similar to those in Western countries as well as on those which are distinctively Slovenian. Some trends, such as the pluralisation of family forms and the decline in marriage and fertility rates started in approximately the same period as in Western countries, i.e. from the 1960s and 1970s onward. Some changes like full-time female employment, promoted by the state immediately after World War II and subsequently, preceded female employment trends in Western countries and may be considered a typical “socialist” characteristic. By contrast, several features which influenced family life in Slovenia in past decades considerably cannot be labelled typically Western or Eastern European, like well-developed and affordable family planning services, the early legal equality of de jure and de facto families, the possibility of parents sharing one year of fully paid parental leave etc. The paper presents the main trends and characteristics of family life in Slovenia in recent decades, compares them with other those in European countries and reflects on the contemporary (ir)relevance of Hajnal’s theory.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicYouth Education and Societal DynamicsFrench-language works237,207