A Critical Evaluation of Attitudes towards Nuclear, Joint and Extended Family Structures among People of Indian Origin in Durban, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This reflexive paper is based on research that was carried out between November 2006 and January 2007 among people of Indian origin now living in Durban-a metropolis situated on the east coast of South Africa. Its intention is to compare the evidence that was gathered during this period with research that was done during the decades of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s on attitudes towards family and household living arrangements among Indians in this city. Against the various sets of information that are discussed here, I arrive at the conclusion that much of the research on the attitudes towards Indian joint and extended families over the last three decades has failed to produce a convincing perspective about this aspect. Their problem lay with two issues viz. the adoption of the social evolution and westernization perspectives inherent in the development paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s, as well as their reliance on either the impersonal methods of data gathering or upon minimal information derived from a small number of interviews. Such approaches fail to grasp relevant socio-religious, philosophical and personalized positions on the issue of attitudes towards these forms of living arrangements. On the contrary, the research that was done between November 2006 and January 2007 provides information, albeit implicit, on the interconnectedness among these factors and demonstrates an overwhelming prevalence of positive attitudes towards joint and extended families.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".