MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999757999 · doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0019

Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors

2002· article· en· W1999757999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jay D. Teachman

Bibliographic record

VenueDemography · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographyNational Survey of Family GrowthCovariateMarital statusSample (material)Quarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyPopulationGerontologyMedicineGeographyResearch methodologySociologyEconometricsEconomicsFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past quarter-century, many covariates of divorce have been identified. However, the extent to which the effects of these covariates remain constant across time is not known. In this article, I examine the stability of the effects of a wide range of divorce covariates using a pooled sample of data taken from five rounds of the National Survey of Family Growth. This sample includes consistent measures of important predictors of divorce, covers marriages formed over 35 years (1950-1984), and spans substantial historical variation in the overall risk of marital dissolution. For the most part, the effects of the major sociodemographic predictors of divorce do not vary by historical period. The one exception is race. These results suggest that the effects associated with historical period have been pervasive, simultaneously altering the risk of divorce for most marriages.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations360
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDemographySame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207