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 OpenAlex
Gyesook Yoo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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 score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.268
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