Occupational Similarity and Spousal Support: A Study of the Importance of Gender and Spouse's Occupation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how gender and the occupation of one's spouse may explain differences in the amounts and types of spousal support individuals receive when coping with the stress of their job. We analyze survey data from a sample of married lawyers, some of whom are married to other lawyers and others who have spouses who are not lawyers. The results show that men receive more emotional support from their spouse than women, regardless of their spouse's occupation. In contrast, lawyers receive more informational support from their spouse if they are also a lawyer, regardless of their gender. These fi ndings suggest that wives provide more understanding and empathy to their spouses than husbands, consistent with the literature on gender diff erences in social support. Our fi ndings also suggest that when it comes to providing informational support in terms of sharing advice, suggestions, solutions or relevant experiences in solving a work-related problem, a spouse who is in the same occupation may be better able to provide support. This is consistent with the literature demonstrating the importance of shared experiences in understanding the eff ectives of social support. Future research might explore not only the importance of shared statuses, such as occupation, but also the meaning of shared experiences in order to better understand spouses' support of one another.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".