Marriage and Cohabitation: Demographic and Socioeconomic Differences in Quebec and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cohabitation has become so prevalent in Canada that it is now the most common mode of entry into conjugality. Yet in drawing comparisons across Canadian provinces, cohabitation is far more prevalent in the province of Quebec than elsewhere. With this in mind, the purpose of the current paper is three fold. First, we set out to briefly situate the recent growth in the number of common-law unions in Canada and Quebec into a broader historical and international context. Secondly, we review available information from the 2001 Census and the 1998 General Social Survey on some of the key socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of persons who cohabit relative to those that marry. Thirdly, we consider how these changes are important to public policy, and of direct interest to legislators and the Canadian legal system. Major differences are documented in comparing Quebec with elsewhere in Canada in terms of the education, labor force participation, median income, income poverty and homeownership. The differences documented between persons who marry relative to cohabiters are found to be much less in Quebec than elsewhere, in a context whereby cohabitation has become far more widespread, an observation with direct implications for public policy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".