A Comparative Study of Cultural Values in Chinese and American Parenting Reflected in The Joy Luck Club
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education plays a pivotal role in a country’s progress and rejuvenation. As the most basic and vital stage in education, parenting exerts an invaluable role in supporting the progress of children. Under the influence of production mode, geographical environment, national policy and other factors, education in different countries takes on a unique and distinguishable character in correspondence with its cultural and geographical contexts. China and America are two prominent countries on the world map which represent, in many ways, divergent national culture models. Taking Strodtbeck and Kluckhohn’s theory of cultural values combined with Hofstede’s national culture model as the theoretical framework, and the novel The Joy Luck Club as data, the study investigates differences in Chinese and American parenting in terms of cultural values from the perspectives of humankind and nature, time orientation, activity orientation and social relationships. Comparing the two styles of parenting, the study argues that Chinese parenting is distinguishable from American parenting in many aspects, including parenting idea, parenting content and parenting method. Adopting a monitoring role, the Chinese parents foreground criticism in parenting, whereas American parents tend to prefer encouragement as the cornerstone of their parenting style, demonstrating a democratic approach and magnanimity towards their children.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".