MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602251942 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.36.2.187

Ethnic Intermarriage in Beijing and Xinjiang, China, 1990

2005· article· en· W2602251942 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rizvan Mamet, Cardell K. Jacobson, Tim B. Heaton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeijingChinaEthnic groupDemographyGeographyCensusLogistic regressionBinomial regressionDistribution (mathematics)SocioeconomicsPopulationSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the one percent samples of the 1990 China Census from Beijing and Xinjiang and binomial logistic regression method, we examine the ethnic intermarriage patterns among the national minority groups in Beijing and Xinjiang. The number of married couples analyzed is 22,909 in Beijing and 27,8 11 in Xinjiang. The findings generally support Blau’s (1971) proposition about group size. After taking into account the effects of age, education, urban-rural residency and geographic distribution, in Beijing the Manchu, the Hui and “other” nationalities are significantly more likely to marry out than the Han (all p<0.001); in Xinjiang the Kazakhs, the Hui, the Uighur females, and “other” nationalities are more likely to marry out than the Han while the Uighur males are less likely to marry out than the Han males (p<0.05). A great deal of variation exists among the minority groups, however. The Manchu are the most exogamous, and the Uighurs are the least. Social, political, cultural, linguistic, and religious factors are important factors affecting the likelihood of out-marriage for minority nationalities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207