Stepfamily instability in Canada – The impact of family composition and union type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze stepfamily instability in Canada by applying the proportional hazards model to the information collected in the 2001 General Social Survey on Family. More specifically, we examine the effect that the family composition and the type of conjugal union exert on the risk of separation, and test whether the impact of cohabiting union varies over time and between Quebec and the other provinces, depending of its stage of institutionalization. The analysis shows that stepmother families face a lower risk of separation than those formed around a stepfather, and that cohabiting stepfamily couples are more unstable than married ones. The risk of union dissolution among stepfamily couples has increased over time, for married as well as cohabiting partners, but the effect of cohabitation relative to marriage does not appear to significantly differ across periods or regions. Zusammenfassung Der vorliegende Artikel untersucht die (In)stabilität von Stieffamilien in Kanada. Die Analysen wurden mit dem General Social Survey (GSS) 2001 unter Anwendung der Ereignisdatenanalyse durchgeführt. Von besonderem Interesse waren der Einfluss der Familienkonstellation und die Art der Partnerschaft auf das Trennungsrisiko. Ferner wurde untersucht, wie sich die (In)stabilität von Stieffamilien über die Zeit entwickelt hat. In der kanadischen Provinz Québec gelten nichteheliche Lebensgemeinschaften bereits als vollständig institutionalisiert. Ein weiterer Aspekt dieser Studie war der Vergleich der Entwicklung der québecer Stieffamilien mit denen im restlichen Kanada über die Zeit. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Stiefmutterfamilien ein geringeres Trennnungsrisiko haben als Stiefvaterfamilien und dass Ehen in Stieffamilien stabiler sind als in nichteheliche Lebensgemeinschaften. Ebenso konnte gezeigt werden, dass für beide Partnerschaftstypen das Trennungsrisiko über die Zeit hinweg stark zugenommen hat.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".