MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252207145 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q26vx

Early gender differences in core values predict anticipated family vs. career orientation (Pre-Print)

2018· preprint· en· W4252207145 on OpenAlexaff
Katharina Block, Antonya Marie Gonzalez, Toni Schmader, Andrew Scott Baron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGender roleAgency (philosophy)Developmental psychologySocial value orientationsValue (mathematics)Orientation (vector space)Future orientationFamily valuesSocial psychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communion and agency are often described as core human values. In adults, these values predict gendered role preferences. Yet little work has examined the extent to which young boys and girls explicitly endorse communal and agentic values and whether early gender differences in values predict boys’ and girls’ different role expectations. In a sample of 411 children aged 6 to 14, we find consistent gender differences in communal and agentic value endorsement. Across our age range, boys endorse communal values less and agentic values more than do girls. Moreover, gender differences in values partially account for boys’ relatively lower family vs. career orientation, predicting their orientation over and above gender identification and parent reports of children’s gender expression. These findings suggest that gender differences in core values emerge surprisingly early in development and predict children’s expectations well before they make decisions about adopting adult roles in their own families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207