MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152984366 · doi:10.1177/0192513x12447054

Family Structure Differences in Family Functioning

2012· article· en· W2152984366 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joshua Freistadt, Lisa Strohschein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial functioningSingle-Parent FamilyPsychologyStepfamilySocial capitalDevelopmental psychologyCohesion (chemistry)Nuclear familyDemographyInterpersonal relationshipSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated family structure differences in family functioning, evaluated whether extra-familial social capital accounted for any observed differences, and tested whether the influence of extra-familial social capital on family functioning varied by family structure. Using the first wave of the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth ( n = 6,223), analysis revealed significantly lower family functioning levels within stable cohabiting two-biological-parent households and stable single-biological-mother households relative to stable married two-biological-parent households, even after sociodemographic controls. Higher levels of social involvement and neighborhoodcohesion were associated with increased family functioning, but did not mediate family structure differences in family functioning. The effect of neighborhood cohesion on family functioning depended on family type such that the benefits of neighborhood cohesion for family functioning were magnified at high levels of neighborhood cohesion for both married and cohabiting households but had much less influence on family functioning within single-mother households.

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)0.005
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207