Gender Differences in Decision-Making During Adolescence: A Comparison of Jewish and Druze Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principal aim of the study was to compare gender differences in the level of autonomy, parental and peer involvement in the decision-making processes of Jewish and Druze adolescents. The method that was chosen to conduct the study was the qualitative research method and to measure the variables in the current study, a questionnaire containing 30 items was developed. The research population includes 243 participants aged 15–18. The findings partially confirmed the research hypotheses. The study showed four main findings. First, the study showed that no gender differences are apparent between Jewish and Druze adolescents in the overall degree of autonomy or in parents’ and peers’ involvement in their decision making. Second, the study revealed that in both groups of adolescents, boys have more autonomy in making decisions relative to girls. The third finding showed that among both male adolescent groups, friends are more involved in their decisions relative to among both female grops. The final finding showed that there is bigger gap in the Druze culture between boys and girls regarding the degree of parental involvement than in the Jewish culture.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".