Immigrant Women Challenge the Role of Men: How the Changing Power Relationship within Iranian Families in Sweden Intensifies Family Conflicts after Immigration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research into the distribution of power in the family and its consequences for family conflicts among immigrants in Sweden is limited and problematic. The situation varies greatly between immigrants from different countries and cultures and of different social backgrounds. We know that, generally, family conflicts and separation among Iranians and other immigrant groups are more common than among Swedes. Why is this? ls it the poor socioeconomic situation of immigrants the main cause of the high frequency of separation? Or is it the cultural differences between the immigrants’ land of origin and Sweden? The question might also be connected to gender relations in immigrant families. Is there, for instance, any difference between men’s and women’s experiences of immigration which affects their power resources and thereby their family relations? How can we explain that it is often the women who take the initiative for the divorce? Is immigration only a problem or can it also be an opportunity? This article describe and analyze how immigration has influenced the distribution of power within Iranian families in Sweden, and the significance of these changes for the origin of family conflicts and conflicts of interest, which in many cases lead to separation. The inquiry concentrates on the Iranian immigrant group, which is the largest group of immigrants which comes from an Asian and Islamic country and of which the majority are refugees. These factors make it possible to get a clearer picture of the effects of immigration on the situation of women among those who came to Sweden with other values and experiences than those of Swedes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".