Post-Separation Conflict Trajectories: A Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although previous studies have shown that parental separation and parental conflict contribute independently to the adaptation difficulties of young people, there is, as of yet, no precise portrait of how post-separation conflicts evolve. Indeed, some fundamental questions remain unanswered: (1) Do parents who experience few conflicts during their break-up continue to enjoy a harmonious relationship afterward? (2) When parents have a conflictual relationship in the first years after separating, do problems eventually subside? (3) Are a family's characteristics associated with the way a post-separation conflict evolves? The present, exploratory study attempts to provide some answers to these three questions. The sample was composed of 123 boys and girls from 8 to 11 years old. The children and their parents were interviewed on two separate occasions at a 1-year interval. The first interview (time 1) took place 2.5 years after the separation on average. The children were notably asked to give their perception of the parental conflict. Four post-separation conflict trajectories were brought to light. Analysis also targeted three more-specific variables that distinguished these conflict trajectories, namely family income, quality of the relationship with the mother, and the degree of agreement at the time of separation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".