Intermarriage Attitude among Ethnic Minority and Majority Groups in the Netherlands: The Role of Family Relations and Immigrant Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a Dutch national sample containing 7,158 respondents, we examined to what extent 1) ethnic background, 2) family characteristics and 3) migrant characteristics are related to ethnic distance, expressed through the intermarriage attitude, of the Dutch majority and four migrant groups: Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese and Antilleans. First, our study showed that large differences in ethnic distance exist between the five ethnic groups. In concordance with notions of group status, the Dutch majority group showed relatively high levels of ethnic distance towards migrants. However, of the five ethnic groups under investigation, Moroccans reported the highest levels of ethnic distance. Second, results show that family cohesion, expressed through the adherence to strict family norms and contacts within the family network, is related to more resistance to ethnic intermarriage. This supports the idea that family cohesion fosters a preference for interactions with culturally similar persons since people from different cultural backgrounds can be seen as threatening the cultural identity and solidarity of one’s own group. Traditional family values were related to more resistance, while qualitative good relations related negatively to the resistance to intermarriage. The last finding confirms the notion that affective and warm (family) relations increase tolerance and positive attitudes towards ethnic out-groups. Third, with respect to migrant characteristics, the results indicated that Dutch language proficiency leads to less resistance to ethnic intermarriage, while migration out of family reasons increases the resistance to ethnic intermarriage. No association was found between the intermarriage attitude and generational status or length of stay.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".