A Causal Approach to Interrelated Family Events: A Cross-National Comparison fo Cohabitation, Non-marital Conception, and Marriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important advances brought about by life course and event history studies is the use of parallel or interdependent processes as explaining factors in transition rate models. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a causal approach to the study of interrelated family events. Various types of interdependent processes are described first, followed by two event history perspectives: the ‘system’ and ‘causal’ approach. The authors assert that the causal approach is more appropriate from an analytical point of view as it provides a straightforward solution to simultaneity, cause-effect lags, and temporal shapes of effects. Based on comparative cross-national applications in West and East Germany, Canada, Latvia, and the Netherlands, we demonstrate the usefulness of the causal approach by analyzing two highly interdependent family processes: entry into marriage (for individuals who are in a consensual union) as the dependent process and first pregnancy/childbirth as the explaining one. Both statistical and theoretical explanations are explored emphasizing the need for conceptual reasoning.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".