Beyond W.E.I.R.D. (Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic)‐centric theories and perspectives: masculinity and fathering in Chinese societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fatherhood scholarship has made much theoretical progress over the past decades, yet existing models and concepts continue to draw primarily on western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD)‐centric assumptions. This review uses demographically sizeable, culturally significant, yet understudied and undertheorized Chinese fathers as an example to reveal the limitations of applying WEIRD‐centric perspectives when studying fathering and fatherhood. Specifically, existing models and concepts of fathering and fatherhood, with an emphasis on father involvement, especially in rough‐and‐tumble play, are predicated on the assumptions of nuclear family and western hegemonic masculinity. The Chinese cultural tradition, in contrast, endorses a literatus masculinity and emphasizes the family lineage, thereby encouraging fathers' educational involvement and inviting grandparental care. These cultural traditions intersect with unfolding social developments in contemporary Chinese societies to shape fathering ideals and practices. A full, routine inclusion of non‐WEIRD fathers, such as Chinese fathers, promises to benefit the scholarship on fathering and fatherhood as a whole.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".