MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597449786 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.45.3.425

Attitudes of Taiwanese College Students toward Marriage: A Comparative Study of Different Family Types and Gender

2014· article· en· W2597449786 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yun‐Chen Huang, Shu-Hui Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)Social psychologyFamily conflictDevelopmental psychologyMarital statusPopulationDemographySociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous researchers reported that parental conflict seems to have considerable influence on children’s marital attitudes. The present study examined the status and the relationships between parental conflict and students’ attitudes toward marriage among Taiwanese college students. The “Parental Marital Conflict Scale” and “Marital Attitude Scale” were used as research tools, and data from 1,113 college students were analyzed. We utilized SPSS software to analyze the data and to shed light on whether there are significant differences between genders and between different family types with regard to attitudes toward marriage. The findings show that increased levels of parental conflict had a negative influence on students’ attitudes toward marriage. Male students’ attitudes toward marriage were more positive than females in general, and students from intact families or families with lower parental conflict reported more positive attitudes toward marriage when compared with those from non-intact families or families with higher parental conflict. We conclude that future studies are needed to better understand these and other factors that influence attitudes towards marriage and possible proactive strategies that might prevent marital problems.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207