Gender Role Attitudes in South Korea: Beyond Dichotomous Classifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has argued that gender role attitudes in South Korea appear to be ambiguous. However, these studies are limited by their division of gender role attitudes into traditionalism and egalitarianism, with insufficient exploration of diverse gender role attitudes. Using latent transition analysis, we investigated the spectrum of gender role attitudes based on the Korea Welfare Panel Study data. We identified three groups of gender role attitudes—traditionalism, pro-work conservatism, and flexible egalitarianism. We investigated how the three groups transitioned between 2008 and 2021 and identified the associated factors. The findings indicate that a significant portion of the population supports pro-work conservatism, though this proportion has decreased. We further found that women transition from the traditional group to the pro-work conservative group or remain in the pro-work conservative group. Additionally, age and education were important factors in transitioning to egalitarian gender roles. Gender role attitudes in South Korea have somewhat shifted toward egalitarianism from 2008 to 2021. However, a contradictory stance persists as there is a simultaneous endorsement of traditional roles for women and their participation in paid work, highlighting a focus area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".