MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168494478 · doi:10.1177/0192513x08322818

Family Structure and Children's Psychosocial Outcomes

2008· article· en· W2168494478 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zheng Wu, Feng Hou, Christoph M. Schimmele

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohabitationPsychosocialProsocial behaviorPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyDemographicsFragile Families and Child Wellbeing StudyDemographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the influence of family structure on children's short-term psychosocial behavioral outcomes, including emotional disorder, conduct disorder, and prosocial behavior. The analysis uses five waves of data (1994-2003) from Canada's National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth to model how living in a cohabitational household (two biological parents) and how experiencing cohabitation dissolution influence children's behaviors, comparing these effects to outcomes observed in children from married biological-parent households. The findings indicate that growing up in a married biological-parent household does not offer a clear advantage. Most differences in behavioral problems across family structure associate with household demographics, low-income status, family dysfunction, and parental nurturance. As such, this study contributes two important findings. First, the results do not support the hypothesis that nonmarital cohabitation represents an undesirable child-rearing environment. Second, cohabitation dissolution has a nonsignificant effect on children's behaviors, which is surprising considering that divorce has a well-established harmful effect.

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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations49
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207