MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2195830409 · doi:10.25071/1927-9833.39584

Post-Divorced Transitions: Mental Health and Suicide Ideation Among Canadian Fathers

2015· article· en· W2195830409 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert A. Kenedy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Family Research and Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrandparentPsychologyMental healthPerceptionSuicide preventionDevelopmental psychologySuicidal ideationPoison controlSocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do fathers matter after separation or divorce? The data based on this Canadian study of 208 fathers, mothers, grandparents, and adult children indicates that children, mothers, and especially fathers seem unimportant after separation and divorce. The initial purpose of this study was to examine the connection between the family law system and the impact this system and the court have on separated and divorced parents as well as their reasons for activism. One of the unexpected findings that emerged was how frequently separated and divorced fathers reported personal mental health issues and suicide ideation. These issues were often associated with being dismissed by the courts as disposable “social” post-separation/divorced parents. The main problem is that these parents and activists are disregarded due to the negative perceptions by the family law courts of both the shared parenting movement and fathers. This perceived negation has impacted fathers’ mental health issues and suicide ideation as well as their activism in the shared parenting movement.

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)0.002
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Family Research and PolicySame topicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseFrench-language works237,207