Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been important changes over the last 25 years in the way in which men and women form partnered relationships. The authors argue that taking a longer-term perspective provides a better understanding of these trends. Within the last quarter century family structures and relationships have changed in significant ways. One of the most striking changes is in the area of partnering, perhaps the most obvious being the increasing tendency for people to live together without marrying (cohabitation) at some stage in their lives and the fall in first marriage and remarriage rates. This article asks what these trends suggest for the future of marriage. The authors explain that those who focus on the last few decades may well draw markedly different conclusions from those adopt a longer term perspective. Within the last quarter century family structures and relationships have changed in significant ways. One of the most striking changes is in the area of partnering, perhaps the most obvious being the increasing tendency for people to live together without marrying (here called “cohabitation”) at some stage in their lives and the fall in first marriage and remarriage rates. But what do these trends suggest for the future of marriage? As will be seen in this article, those who focus on the last few decades may well draw markedly different conclusions from those adopt a longer-term perspective.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".