“By Tenderness and Flattery”: Construction and Reconstruction of ‘Cultural Difference’ in Research on Intermarriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermarriage is the center of many imaginations, ascriplions and expectations. Binalional couples are viewed as a provocation for (national) societies, as well as a case study for assimilation processes or as proof of a ‘real love’that can overcome all obstacles. This article deals with the question of whether qualitative research on intermarriage in Germany handles the ambivalences and if so, how. Analyzing the social construction of gender and cultural difference throughout the research, it can be shown that the research itself takes part in the ‘lixation of foreignness’. The cultural differences within the relationship, for which the research is looking, arc already implied by the organization of the study. Based on this findings, a model of interpretation is introduced that highlights the developments and adaptations throughout the course oflife as a biographical learning process. This helps to reveal how the couple develops individual constructions of gender and cultural difference and how these constructions arc changed and modified during the adaptation of structural necessities like the integration into the labor market or the starting of a family and reactions to the social surrounding. Instead of taking constant presence and relevance of cullural difference for granlcd, it can he shown that the meaning can be brought to the foreground or can take a back seat, depending on the couple and the context. ‘Cultural difference’can he undcrslood as an enabling slructurc through which individual gender relations can be developed and realized. Relations, which would not be possible in a mononational relationship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.117 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".