MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7053581489

What Are the Attitudes towards Changing Gender Roles within the Saudi Family?

2023· article· en· W7053581489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of international women's studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
Topicthermodynamics and calorimetric analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingQuarter (Canadian coin)WorkforceGuardianSample (material)Work (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saudi Vision 2030 was launched with a focus on three main themes: “a vibrant society,” “a thriving economy,” and “an ambitious nation” (2017). In order to realize these primary themes, more participation of women is required in the workforce. A number of legislative reforms have supported the entry of more women into the workforce, such as lifting the male guardian permission for work and travel, supporting programs for childcare, allowing women to drive cars, and ensuring women’s involvement in leadership positions. Saudi women are now working in defense, mining, construction, manufacturing, and retail among other sectors. As a result, women's participation in the workforce increased from 19.4% in 2017 to 35.6% in the second quarter of 2022. Because these social and economic transformations have the potential to influence the dynamics within the Saudi family, this study investigates the attitudes of Saudi men and women toward gender roles within the Saudi family. Based on the short version of the Attitudes toward Women Scale, an online questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 431 Saudis in the fall of 2022. Statistical analyses were conducted to measure women’s attitudes compared to men’s overall scores. Results of the independent sample t-test indicated that women held more pro-feminist attitudes compared to men.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of international women's studiesSame topicthermodynamics and calorimetric analysesFrench-language works237,207