MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101094957 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.40.3.475

Effects of Marital Quality on Children in Brazilian Families

2009· article· en· W2101094957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen V. Stutzman, Richard B. Miller, Cody S. Hollist, Olga García Falceto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPopulationDevelopmental psychologyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is substantial research on the relationship between marital satisfaction and its effect on child development, with empirical evidence suggesting that marital conflict and dissatisfaction among the parents is predictive of poorer child outcomes. These findings are consistent with systems theory, which suggests that dynamics in one subsystem have an effect on other systems in the family. However, there is little known about how these variables apply to the Latino population. With Latinos now comprising the largest minority population, it is important to understand the effect of marital distress on child outcomes in Latino families. Data for the study come from a larger longitudinal study of 126 families living in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Each family had a child ranging in age from 3 to 5 years old. Results from multiple regression analyses indicated that mother's (but not fathers') reports of marital conflict were associated with behavioral child outcomes. Positive marital interactions were not predictive of behavioral outcomes. These results extend the current literature on the impact of marital conflict on child outcomes to the Brazilian culture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207