Ethnic Differences in the Attitudes and Practice of Consanguineous Marriage among Kurds and Turks in Uromiyeh District, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the spread of modern familial values and norms and the rapid pace of modernization in Iran, kinship marriages remain a common practice among some ethnic groups, including Turk and Kurd. This study is informed by modernization and development idealism theories to examine factors associated with the practice and attitude of Kurdish and Turkish women to consanguineous marriage, utilizing data from a representative sample of 768 ever-married women residing in the district of Uromiyeh in Iran. The results indicated that consanguineous marriage was more prevalent among Kurds rather than Turks, and Kurdish rather than Turkish women held more positive orientations to consanguineous. Multivariate results showed that being a Kurd than a Turk was strongly associated with the likelihood of practicing kinship marriage and having positive attitudes to consanguineous marriage, while the levels of modernization and development idealism showed no or weak association. The results suggest that ethnic belonging can reinforce consanguineous marriage regardless of being modernized or holding modern development ideals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".