The Importance of Social Context in the Formation of the Value of Children for Adolescents: Social Class and Rural Urban Differences in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how adolescents’ values may be shaped by the immediate social context with special reference to social class and rural urban background. The locus of study is Taiwan, a society with drastically declining birth rates in recent years. It is hypothesized that the value adolescents place on having children (or the positive value) and not having children (or the negative value) are accounted for by individual, familial and social contextual factors. Data are taken from an island-wide sample of first-year senior high students. A field survey was administered from winter of 2005 to spring of 2006. The analysis shows that three dimensions can be extracted from both positive and negative values toward having children: with emotional value rated the most important, followed by physical and social value. Results indicate that expected effects from different social class and rural-urban background vary and are salient for explaining physical and social value. In addition, social contextual factors and individual factors are shown to contribute to the formation of positive value of children among Taiwanese adolescents. The importance of social context in adolescents’ value formation with regard to the value of children is thus supported.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".