MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974267046 · doi:10.1080/21620555.2019.1654368

Social Tolerance of Homosexuality: A Quantitative Comparison of Mainland China, Singapore, and Taiwan

2019· article· en· W2974267046 on OpenAlexaff
Min Zhou, Tianyang Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Sociological Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityMainland ChinaHomosexualityChinaAffect (linguistics)MainlandEast AsiaPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthGender studiesDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsSocioeconomicsPsychologySocial psychologyGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares three Asian societies that are heavily influenced by Chinese culture and Confucianism, mainland China, Singapore, and Taiwan, in their social correlates of public tolerance of homosexuality. Due to different sociopolitical environments and public policies regarding homosexuality, individual-level factors such as education, income, age, and religiosity operate in distinct ways in the three societies. The more progressive environment in Taiwan allows more room for the manifestation of individual-level influences, compared to mainland China and Singapore. With respect to homosexuality, the tolerance-promoting effects of education and income and the tolerance-depressing effects of age and religiosity are significantly more pronounced in Taiwan than in mainland China and Singapore. Broader sociopolitical environments not only affect the overall level of tolerance of homosexuality in a society but also shape what individuals in the society are more tolerant.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations45
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Sociological ReviewSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207