Reciprocity Revisited: Give and Take in Dutch and Immigrant Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical theory suggests that “generalized reciprocity,” giving without clear expectations of returns, is characteristic for exchange within the family. Modern theory assumes differences between Western, “individualistic” cultures, and non-Western, more “collectivistic” cultures, presumably leading to ethnic variation in the nature of reciprocity within the family. These assumptions are examined by using data from the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (NKPS; 2004). Patterns of reciprocity in intergenerational support exchange among three ethnic groups, “Mediterraneans,” “Caribbeans,” and native Dutch, (N= 3,520) are analyzed. Four varieties of reciprocity are distinguished: high exchangers (giving and receiving much), receivers (giving little, receiving much), givers (giving much, receiving little), and low exchangers (giving and receiving little). “Generalized reciprocity” proved not to be the prototype of support exchange; in fact, low exchange was the most common pattern. The similarities in reciprocity patterns between the three ethnic groups were greater than the differences; the Dutch were more often low exchangers than the other ethnic groups but after introducing the other independent variables this difference was no longer significant. Patterns of reciprocity were found to be affected by a combination of socio-structural, cultural and relational factors.
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 | 0.001 | 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".