Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expression of Iranian family is viewed more from its descriptive aspect than from an analytical one. Iranian families have historically been more religious and have been organized with regards to religious interpretations coming from Zoroastrianism and Islam practitionres. In such families, marriage and reproduction are of a significant value. Parents along with their children are established in a network of kinship relations and most issues are organized through this network. Throughout the past decades and even before that, families had undergone major changes. Rising of divorce rate; reduction in marriage rate; freedoms given to women and their increased participation in social and political fields; changes in attitudes on gender issues, focusing on love and emotions as being a primary criterion in selecting a spouse along with support from the family and changes that have occurred among the new generation are some of the main examples. On the other hand a simultaneous presence of these generations, in a single family, has prepared the grounds for integration within a family and its simpler relationships with the social environment. However, Iranian families encounter major challenges related to women, children from the new generation and modernization, whose changes had been introduced through public media and education.$$changes in Iranian family, family types, Generations
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".