Youth and Family in Southeast Europe: Patterns of Individualization Along with the Lines of Human Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The individualization of family life is one of the crucial ideas among leading theorists dealing with late modernity (Giddens, 1991; Beck, 1992; Bauman, 2000; Beck-Gemsheim, 2002). The individualization thesis was applied in a study of youth attitudes and actions relating to individualization in family life. Data were gathered through surveys on representative samples of young people from nine countries in Southeast Europe. The Human Development Index (HDI) was used as an indicator of the general level of modernization. Analyses revealed that young people from countries with higher HDI tend to (1) be substantially more autonomous in their decision-making and in their plans for the future; (2) perceive relationships with their parents as more conflictual; (3) perceive decision-making in their family as less patriarchal; and (4) be substantially less inclined to marry. With the notable exception of Slovenia, there is also a strong tendency for youth from more developed countries to leave their parents’ households earlier. With some important reservations, these findings lend important empirical support to the individualization thesis relating to family life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".