Is the Cohabitation–Marriage Gap in Money Pooling Universal?
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
Numerous studies have shown that cohabitors are less likely to pool their money than married couples. The authors raise the question of whether the marriage–cohabitation gap in money pooling varies according to the level of institutionalization of cohabitation in the society. They compared 2 Canadian regions with very different demographic regimes. The francophone province Québec has the highest proportion of cohabiting couples in the world, whereas the levels of cohabitation are moderate in other Canadian provinces. Moreover, the 2 regions differ in their legal systems (civil code vs. common law) and legal regulation of cohabitation. Using data from the Canadian 2011 General Social Survey ( N = 9,852), the authors found that cohabitors in both regions are less likely to pool their money together. Nevertheless, they did not confirm the hypothesis that the marriage–cohabitation gap is smaller in Québec despite the higher levels of institutionalization of cohabitation in this region.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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