Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether the marriage institution is in decline has been a subject of debate for some time among family scholars. The same issue has lately been troubling the Chinese in Hong Kong. Premarital sex, late marriage, lifelong singlehood, voluntary childlessness and divorce are on the rise, signaling the weakening of traditional familism. However, it is unclear whether marital quality is deteriorating as the general public suspects. This study uses a global measure of marital satisfaction as an indicator of overall marital quality and decomposes it into four constituting domains, including the quality of (1) emotional support, (2) togetherness, (3) physical intimacy and (4) trust. By probing into the relative importance of these evaluative criteria, we intend to reveal respondents’ marriage expectations. This approach helps us to trace the considerations involved in evaluating a marriage among three cohorts of people born in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, respectively. After adjusting for life-course factors, we found no evidence of deterioration in marital satisfaction in our cohort comparison. Among the four evaluative criteria, our respondents emphasized emotional support and trust as the most important aspects of a satisfying marriage. More importantly, whereas emotional support became much more prominent, trust attenuated its influence slightly over time, indicating a change in the meaning of marriage. Despite this change, the traditional notion of mutual dependence, as expressed in the trust between partners, remains relevant to the concept of marital satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".