MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284887430 · doi:10.15273/jue.v12i2.11414

“One or Two?”: Fertility Decisions After the One-child Policy in China

2022· article· en· W4284887430 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chuhan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Undergraduate Ethnography · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityOne-child policyFamily planning policySocioeconomic statusGovernment (linguistics)Total fertility rateChinaBirth rateBirth controlFamily planningKinshipIdeologyEconomic growthPolitical scienceSociologyPopulationEconomicsDemographyPoliticsResearch methodologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The one-child policy, as a government-guided family planning and birth control policy, lasted for nearly thirty years beginning in the 1970s. As the decreasing fertility rate in modern Chinese society caused many problems, such as a demographic imbalance, the government decided to establish the universal two-child policy in urban areas in 2015. However, the fertility rate did not rise as much as the government expected. To study the reasons for the continuously low fertility rate, I conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 young married heterosexual couples in the city of Jinan, Shandong province, China. Throughout this paper, I focus on the role of kinship and the socioeconomic barriers to having a second child in urban Chinese families after the establishment of the two-child policy. The main reasons explaining the unexpected low fertility rate after the universal two-child policy in urban areas are first, increasing cost of investing in children, and second, the lack of interaction with cousins. This research outlines demographic policy and how fertility ideology and family decisions changed through policy changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Undergraduate EthnographySame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207