The Effect of Premarital Cohabitation on Marital Stability over the Duration of Marriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that premarital cohabitors who eventually marry are more likely to divorce or separate than persons who do not cohabit prior to marriage. This study investigates the possibility that the difference in marital stability between cohabitors and non-cohabitors may change with increasing duration of marriage. Using Canadian 1995 General Social Survey data, various Proportional Hazards Models were specified to compare the marital dissolution risks of cohabitors and non-cohabitors, while controlling for a set of relevant factors. Initially, it was found that both groups had virtually identical dissolution risks. However, further specification of the hazards model indicated that indeed cohabitors have a greater risk of marital dissolution than noncohabitors. Further tests to differentiate between short- and long-term unions indicated that premarital cohabitors have a greater dissolution risk in the first ten years of their union, while non-cohabitors have a greater hazard after ten years of marriage. We discuss these findings in the context of the North American based literature on cohabitation and marriage dissolution, and offer suggestions for further study.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".