MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W166696703

Divorcing Children: Children’s Experience of Their Parent’s Divorce

2006· article· en· W166696703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin Nugent

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMeaning (existential)Perspective (graphical)Strict constructionismPrincipal (computer security)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This straightforward book is an effort to better understand the process of divorce through children’s eyes. It provides an expanded overview and discussion of a British study that carefully reviewed the experiences of 104 children, aged 7 to 15, with their parent’s separation and divorce. Efforts were made to secure a random, representative sample by approaching recently divorced parents, accessed via the records of six courts throughout Britain. Parent figures and children were approached in respectful and creative ways (e.g. newsletters, website, and activity books). Although there was some use of standardized measures, the principal findings come of detailed, semi-structured interviews with the children themselves. In some topic areas, the perspective of the children was compared to that of parent figures accessed through a questionnaire. With no control group in place, this was essentially a careful piece of qualitative research, which seeks to give voice to the experience of children experiencing divorce. An appendix carefully guides readers through the research process conducted by this multi-disciplinary team. True to their social constructionist viewpoint, efforts are made to highlight what the children had to say, viewing them as the only reliable witnesses to their own experience. Quantitative findings are highlighted with ample direct quotes from interviews with the children. Viewing divorce as a process, they demonstrate that children create meaning and shape their own experiences. Specifically, they explore how the child found out about the parental separation, their experience of sharing and discussing this change with others, impacts upon parent-child relationships, navigating “residence” and “contact” arrangements and their overview of how the change and adaptation process has gone for them. They also review the child’s understanding and experience of the legal process. A concluding chapter summarizes important findings and seeks to apply these to “strategic public policy”. An early chapter looks concisely at the recent evolution of policy and practice in this area in Britain. While not directly relevant to the Canadian context, many similar developments and issues (e.g. the recognition of children’s rights and the difficulty of finding a realistic way that these rights can be exercised in legal matters) have arisen in both jurisdictions. For the most part, this book accomplishes what it has promised to do. Important findings include the common experience of a sense of crisis in these changes for many children, some inconsistency in meeting their needs for reliable information and a variable sense of being adequately supported. Interesting themes were; difficulty communicating with fathers, value of support from friends, and a sense of involvement without understanding the legal process. Direct quotes liven children’s emotions, struggles and successes. Paradoxically, I was perhaps hoping that the children had something more to say. Most of their conclusions would not come as a surprise to clinicians who spend time with children going through these experiences. Although the book allows them to make their case more comprehensively, I have a sense that the key outcomes of their research could be adequately summarized in a journal article. I also found their recommendations for improved public policy somewhat limited and focused primarily on the British context. Overall, I feel that this is a worthwhile contribution to social and clinical understanding of this area. This is a look at a non-clinical population at a certain time, and the authors point out that this is a different vantage position from those who have sought to elucidate the long-term impact of divorce on children. The author’s respectful approach to these children is evident and instructive. This study provides a useful way to keep the child’s experience at the forefront for parents, clinicians and others who seek to support these children. This should also be of interest to those who work within the legal context or who seek to shape the legal system and public policy in this area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207