MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603461268 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.37.1.59

Changing Views on Family Diversity in Urban Korea

2006· article· en· W2603461268 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gyesook Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychosocial Factors Impacting Youth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)Nuclear familyExtended familyFamily incomeFamily lifeFamily valuesFamily memberPsychologySocial psychologyDemographic economicsSocioeconomicsSociologyEconomic growthGenealogyPolitical scienceHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study, based on a survey of 999 respondents in-Seoul, Korea, examines the degree to which respondents accept diverse family structures and explores the factors predicting acceptance of family diversity. The results show that the intact nuclear family is accepted as the typical normal family in urban Korea. On the contrary, the communal family, extended kin living together, homosexual couples, single households, and one’s ancestors are not viewed as families. Overall, the respondents demonstrate moderate levels of acceptance of family diversity. People who are older, more educated, female, and have more family income are more likely to accept family diversity than their counterparts. Respondents from more traditional family backgrounds are less likely to accept family diversity. The conclusions and implications of these findings are discussed.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicPsychosocial Factors Impacting YouthFrench-language works237,207