MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W240289187

Children in Changing Families: Life after Parental Separation

2003· article· en· W240289187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kay Pasley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Abandonment (legal)SociologyLife course approachFamily lifeRhetoricSocial scienceDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyGender studiesPolitical scienceHistoryLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children in Changing Families: Life After Parental Separation. Jan Pryor & Bryan Rogers. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2001. 320 pp. ISBN 0-631-21576-X. $26.95 (paper). In Children in Changing Families: Life After Parental Separation, Jan Pryor and Bryan Rogers review the volume of research on children's experiences with parental separation using studies from the U.S. and Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. This international emphasis is but one of the aspects that sets this book apart from many other recent books on the effects of divorce on children. Another unique aspect is an initial chapter that provides a socio-historical context for studies on changing families, including an interesting discussion of demographic changes and the current social rhetoric in the opposing perspectives of liberals and conservatives. A second aspect is their discussion of the research from selected theoretical and conceptual frameworks, including trauma theories (e.g., loss, abandonment, attachment); life course theories (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, social and economic capital); and stresses and resources. These frameworks are integrated throughout the various chapters and ultimately are evaluated for their explanatory power in the final chapter. A third aspect of the book is the heavy focus on the findings from studies, many of which are longitudinal in nature and most of which used sizable and representative samples. Although there is mention of qualitative studies, particularly those with a longitudinal component (e.g., Wallerstein's work), these are given much less emphasis and included primarily as content in previously published metaanalyses by other scholars. The primary objective of the book is to answer the question of whether fare less well if brought up in families that depart from the structure of two original parents living with their own children (p. 54). In fulfilling this objective, the book has several strengths worth noting. First, Pryor and Bryan have covered the extant literature in a clear and concise manner, and in Chapter 3 they provide the reader with valuable summary tables of the studies and the effect sizes. Second, they address all of the typical child outcomes: social and emotional behavior; aggressive, antisocial, and criminal behavior; substance use; physical health and development; mental health and well being; and family and intimate relationships. In addition, they focus on changes over time from childhood through adulthood when such evidence is available, and they address the issues of multiple transitions including parental remarriage and redivorce. Third, the authors discuss the available evidence of the effects of preseparation/divorce on children's immediate and long-term outcomes. A chapter is dedicated to children's perspectives (Chapter 4), and another chapter (Chapter 5) to the mediating and moderating effects of various factors (e.g., socioeconomic, family environment, parents' mental health) on children's outcomes. Of special interest to me were Chapters 6 and 7 that examined stepfamilies and multiple transitions and fathers. At the end of each chapter the authors offer an overview of the findings and interpretations of the research from both the liberal and conservative perspectives to suggest where, if any, these positions are supported. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207