MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762672118 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.47.2.247

Single Singaporeans and their Hesitation to use Commercial Matchmaking Services

2016· article· en· W2762672118 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mathew Mathews, Paulin Tay Straughan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntermediaryCommodificationEthnic groupRomanceQuality (philosophy)State (computer science)Selection (genetic algorithm)SociologyBusinessPolitical sciencePublic relationsPsychologyEconomicsMarketingEconomyLawComputer scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rising proportion of singles in several East and South-east Asian countries and the related concerns of low fertility have resulted in policy makers in the region introducing state sponsored matchmaking services to help singles enter the nuptial phase. In this paper, the case of Singapore is discussed with particular reference to the hesitation of singles to use such marriage intermediaries. Using a qualitative approach involving 83 single Singaporeans of different ethnic and social backgrounds, the aversion to commodification in the mate selection process, the lack of authenticity and spontaneity that ensues from finding matches through commercial services, and the concern that agencies do not provide quality singles are identified as potential barriers to the use of matchmaking services. Possibly the early involvement of the state in promoting such matchmaking services is being resisted by singles who are averse to subjugating their freedom to pursue the spontaneity of romantic love for the pragmatism of matchmaking.

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 score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207