MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1858028813 · doi:10.25336/p62w3q

Is Separation still an Important Component of Marital Dissolution?

2008· article· en· W1858028813 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Wayne W. McVey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohabitationWifeSeparation (statistics)Marital separationGeneral partnershipDiversification (marketing strategy)DemographyPopularityDemographic economicsGeographySociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyEconomicsStatisticsLawBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the diversification and changes in the Canadian family form over the past 25 years. While the husband-wife family has declined over this time period, it still remains the dominant family form. Statistics Canada census statistics allows for the examination of new family forms since 1981, as the common-law partnership and the now married have been distinguished within the husband-wife family category. With the introduction of the 1968 and 1985 Divorce Acts, separation became a major ground for divorce in Canada. Marital breakdown should be measured by the incidence of both divorce and separation. The popularity of cohabitation further clouds the measuring of total partnership breakdown since separation of cohabiting partners is not recorded. This research focuses on the change in marital separation and the increase in cohabitation since 1981. Marital separation has declined in its contribution to total marital dissolution since 1985.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207