Gender Differences in Gender-Role Attitudes: A Comparative Analysis of Taiwan and Coastal China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated that women are more likely than men to support egalitarian gender-role attitudes (Brewster and Padavic 2000; Katsurada and Sugihara 1999; Mason and Lu 1988; Rice and Coates 1995; Wilson and Smith 1995). While considerable attention has been paid to country differences in gender-role attitudes associated with women’s—especially married women’s—employment at the individual and societal levels, the industrialization hypothesis used in the previous studies has, however, yielded inconsistent results (Haller and Hoellinger 1994; Alwin, Braun, and Scott 1992; Baxter and Kane 1995; Crompton and Harris 1997; Hsieh and Burgess 1994; Panayotova and Brayfield 1997; Scott and Duncombe 1992). Several issues have remained unexplored. The first is a theoretical explanation for attitudinal gender differences varying by society when considering non-economic social forces, such as social-political ideology, national policy, and other institutional forces. The second is the extent to which factors corresponding to gender socialization at the individual, familial, and societal levels structure female and male attitudes differently. The third is national comparison focusing on non-Western populations; previously, attention has focused on Western societies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".