MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117038050 · doi:10.1177/002214650404500203

Marital Transitions and Mental Health

2004· article· en· W2117038050 on OpenAlexaff
Terrance J. Wade, David J. Pevalin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Social Behavior · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthCausationMarital statusPsychologyBritish Household Panel SurveyMarital separationSocial supportPsychiatryDemographySocial psychologyPopulationSociologyDemographic economicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most research identifies marital disruption as a precursor for poor mental health but is generally unable to discount the potential selection effect of poor mental health leading to marital disruption. We use data from nine annual waves of the British Household Panel Survey to examine social selection and social causation as competing explanations. Mental health is measured using the general health questionnaire. We examine mental health at multiple time points prior to and after a marital transition through separation or divorce and compare this process to those who experience widowhood. All groups transitioning out of marriage have a higher prevalence of poor mental health afterwards but for those separated or divorced, poor mental health also precedes marital disruption, lending support to both social-causation and social-selection processes. The processes both preceding and after the transition to widowhood differ, with increased prevalence of disorder centering around the time surrounding the death itself

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)0.007
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations352
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Social BehaviorSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207