MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599176550 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.37.4.495

Evolution and Contemporary Social Transformations in Families

2006· article· en· W2599176550 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sergio Reuben Soto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEconomic and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologySocial transformationSocial capitalNuclear familyFeelingConsolidation (business)Perspective (graphical)Social reproductionEpistemologySocial changeSocial scienceEconomicsEconomic growthAnthropologyComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Firstly, this paper intends to analyze the kind of relationships existing inside a family. In order to do that, the author makes an effort to reconsider its historical forming process applying classical anthropological texts. At this stage, the analysis proposes two different types of relationships between human beings: the primal, which arose from the most elementary feelings of love, protection, accompaniment and a strictly social relation rose from needs of cooperation and collective work. Family is an expression of both kinds of relationships. Secondly, this work analyzes nuclear family as a result of a historical process associated with the development of capital and social conditions, which make its consolidation possible. Thirdly, the author proposes a discussion about crisis of nuclear family under the contemporary global transformation perspective of capital accumulation. As a conclusion, it describes some reflections on perspectives that those transformations brought to the role of the family.$$Family evolution, Contemporary social transformation, Costa Rica.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicEconomic and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207