MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Individualized Marriage and the Integration of Resources

2011· article· en· W1969461195 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marriage and the Family · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Independence (probability theory)Arranged MarriageResource (disambiguation)SociologyPsychologySocial psychologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In individualized marriages, spouses maintain independence in their relationship. In individualized marriages, do married couples manage their money in pooled accounts or do they keep separate accounts? We answer this question with the 2002 International Social Survey Programme (N = 18,587;31 country contexts) and examine how variation in the individualization of marriage is related to variation in resource integration within marriage. We make two contributions. First, we found that individualization matters. When couples understood and practiced individualized marriage, they were more likely to keep their money separate. The presence of individualized approaches to marriage and individualized alternatives to marriage within a country were also related to a higher likelihood of couples keeping money separate. Second, we found that integrating resources remained a constitutive part of marriage. Despite trends toward individualization and growing alternatives to marriage, most married couples continued to pool their money.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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