Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study estimates the sex-specific prevalence of repartnering after widowhood. The main objective is to examine the competing choice between nonmarital cohabitation and remarriage as well as repartnering differentials. METHODS: The study uses data from the 2007 Canadian General Social Survey and life table methods to illustrate gender and regional differences in the cumulative proportion of people aged 45 and older who repartner after widowhood. Proportional hazard models are used to examine how factors such as socioeconomic resources, region, demographic characteristics, and health associate with the risk of repartnering and repartnering preferences. RESULTS: Most repartnering after widowhood occurs within ten years of this event or not at all. Ten years after widowhood, about 7% of widows and 29% of widowers have formed a new union. For both widows and widowers, the rate of remarriage is twice as high as the rate of cohabitation. The exception to this is the province of Quebec, where cohabitation is a more prevalent choice of repartnering than remarriage. There is a weak association between socioeconomic resources and both the risk of cohabitation and remarriage. DISCUSSION: Our results confirm that constraints in marriage markets appear to contribute to a gender gap in the prevalence of repartnering after widowhood. Though the widowed prefer remarriage over cohabitation as a repartnering choice, there are important regional differences in repartnering that reflect cultural norms in the social acceptance of cohabitation. Socioeconomic disincentives to marriage do not appear to push the widowed into cohabitation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".