Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the last General Social Survey (GSS) on family, there were slightly over 500.000 stepfamilies living in Canada in 2001. These families represented 11,8% of all couples living with children of any given age in their household, and 9,2% of both one- and two-parent families comprising children (Statistics Canada 2002). These figures are a little higher than the percentage of 7% of stepfamilies observed in Germany among two-parent families comprising at least one child under the age of 18 (Teubner 2002a). The proportion of stepfamilies has been rising steadily over the past decades, as the rates of divorce and separation increased, and it is most likely to keep growing in the future as conjugal instability remains high. Stepfamilies, which comprise at least one child born from a previous relationship, differ in many respects from “intact families” that solely comprise children born to the ongoing couple, and they have sometimes been categorized as a form of dysfunctional families (Saint-Jacques 1998; Théry 1987). Yet, quantitative research on stepfamilies is still passably rare and international comparisons remain few, perhaps due to the difficulties encountered when trying to identify and analyse this type of families. This chapter aims to draw a broad portrait of current stepfamilies in Canada and to compare it against that described in Germany by Bien et al. (2002).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".