Mosaic of beliefs: Comparing gender ideology in China across generation, geography, and gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modernization accounts of cultural change hold that economic development drives liberalization of social values, including gender beliefs. Some comparative gender scholarship suggests that societal affluence is often accompanied by the growth of gender-essentialist beliefs, and that these beliefs coexist comfortably alongside gender-egalitarian values. The multidimensional conceptualization of gender ideology that is required to assess these competing claims has been applied so far mostly to Western societies. China is an obvious case for extending knowledge of these relationships, given its rapid economic growth and its recent history of state-imposed gender-egalitarian discourses. Applying latent class analysis to the Chinese General Social Survey (2010–2017), this study links different tenets of gender ideology in China to temporally and spatially specific histories and gendered interests. The results show that the relative importance of modernization and gender accounts depends on the generational, regional, and gendered identities being examined. Unlike in the West, moreover, egalitarian and essentialist beliefs do not always coincide in contemporary China. The friction between these beliefs reflects the resilience of male-primacy ideology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".