MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2460834320 · doi:10.14288/1.0067768

Routes to remarriage and subsequent (re)marital quality : does how you get there really matter?

2009· article· en· W2460834320 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamara Koren

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemarriageQuality (philosophy)Political sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remarriage is a growing phenomenon that has reached an all-time high within the past few decades. While research on the marital quality of remarried couples has become common, existing remarriage literature has endlessly assessed remarried couples as a united and cohesive group, failing to distinguish between the various forms and complexities. Due to this lack of research, this study aims to investigate various forms of remarriage (e.g. serial/higher order marriage, remarriage through widowhood or divorce, and postmarital cohabitation as recoupling) in terms of relationship quality in order to clearly show that remarriage is not a simple union, but rather a complex form. Compared to those with a lower number of previous marriages, remarried persons who have a higher past number of marriages were hypothesized to experience lower marital quality. Widowers who remarry are also hypothesized to encompass higher levels of marital quality when compared to those who divorced and then remarried. And finally, persons who chose to cohabit post-divorce were compared to remarried persons, as a pure exploratory analysis. To assess marital quality three dimensions that have been well documented are used: divorce attitudes, marital interaction, and disagreements. Using the Canadian General Social Survey cycle 15: family history data set, logistic regression analyses are used for the two binary dependent variables (divorce attitudes and marital interaction) whereas multiple regression is used for the disagreement dependent variable. Overall findings indicated no support for any of the hypotheses once the control variables were added, however, postmarital cohabitors differed from remarried persons in terms of likelihood of divorce/breakup; there were no other significant differences between these groups. This study helped to explore a different way of looking at remarriage and these results suggest that more research is needed in order to investigate these variations of remarried unions on experiences of marital quality.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics→French-language works237,207→