MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105464203 · doi:10.1177/0192513x14529432

From Motivations to Accounts

2014· article· en· W2105464203 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohabitationPhenomenonIndependence (probability theory)Social psychologyPsychologySociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Living Apart Together (LAT) relationships involve two people in a long-term, committed intimate relationship who choose to live in separate households. We present findings from one of the first Canadian studies of this phenomenon, also distinct in its use of an interpretive approach to the phenomenon. Fifty-six mid- to late-life participants (28 couples) were interviewed in-person; data were analyzed through the lens of interpretive inquiry. LAT relationships were constructed by participants as protecting personal independence while mitigating relationship risks associated with cohabitation. Participants further justified their arrangements by drawing on ideas about age and/or gender. Though LAT arrangements may help enact the empowering potential of Giddens’ “pure relationship,” they can represent individual-level solutions to broader gendered inequities in cohabiting relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.314 · 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