MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315574185 · doi:10.1177/00207152221147493

Mosaic of beliefs: Comparing gender ideology in China across generation, geography, and gender

2023· article· en· W4315574185 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rujun Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyEssentialismModernization theoryScholarshipConceptualizationChinaSociologyGender studiesGender historyPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.310 · 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.

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

Citations40
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207