MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153593228 · doi:10.1111/pere.12067

Divorce and personality development across middle adulthood

2015· article· en· W2153593228 on OpenAlexaff
Mathias Allemand, Patrick L. Hill, Regula Lehmann

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonal Relationships · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsPsychologyExtraversion and introversionPersonalityBig Five personality traitsDevelopmental psychologyAffect (linguistics)OrderlinessClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study tested whether divorce helps explain individual differences in personality development in the years that follow a divorce. The sample consisted of 526 middle‐aged adults aged 42–46 years at the beginning. Personality traits were measured using the NEO ‐Five‐Factor Inventory at three measurement occasions over 12 years. First, personality development was characterized by individual differences in change. Second, those individuals who experienced a divorce showed a decrease in extraversion and positive affect over time although nondivorced individuals did not change on these traits. Third, divorce was associated with a decrease in dependability. Fourth, divorce was associated with a decrease in orderliness for individuals who were remarried. The results of this study indicated that divorce had little influence on personality development.

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)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonal RelationshipsSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207