Cohabitation in Great Britain: past, present and future trends--and attitudes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an introduction to the historical trends in cohabitation over the last quarter century, the article assesses the available evidence on changing attitudes--relating them to the changing patterns in the proportions cohabiting and premaritally cohabiting. Using data primarily from the General Household Survey (GHS) the article then traces the growth in cohabitation, and pre-marital cohabitation, and examines the differentials in cohabitation by age, marital status and sex. The proportions of women who cohabited pre-maritally before their first and second marriages are found to have grown substantially since the late 1960s, to around 75 per cent and 85 per cent, respectively for marriages in the mid-1990s. Amongst those cohabiting at the time of interview, the length of time cohabiting has increased over the last 15 years, especially for single men and women. The duration of time women have been pre-maritally cohabiting before their first marriage has also increased over the same period--and their ages at the start of pre-marital cohabitation have become consistently older since the mid-1960s. The possible future growth in the proportions and numbers cohabiting is also considered--and some of the implications discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".