The Processes Distinguishing Stable From Unstable Stepfamily Couples: A Qualitative Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Second marriages are known to be more fragile than first marriages. To better understand the factors that contribute to this fragility, this qualitative study compared stepfamilies that stayed together with those that separated by collecting interview data from one adult in each of the former ( n = 31) and latter ( n = 26) stepfamilies. Data were analyzed using a general inductive approach. The analysis allowed us to identify key processes that contributed to stepfamilies staying intact or breaking up. We found that the way in which families approached problems and the strategies they employed had more influence on stepfamily survival than the nature, number, or intensity of these problems. We also outlined the role of certain elements related to family context, such as the custody of children from former unions, intrafamily communication, and each person's particular characteristics. With regard to practitioner intervention, the results highlight the importance of examining the way in which couples deal with their problems, the strategies they employ, and the effectiveness of the strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it