MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521558012 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.44.3.291

Divorce and Adult Children’s Perceptions of Family Obligations

2013· article· en· W2521558012 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Belinda Wijckmans, Jan Van Bavel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentKinshipObligationSocial psychologyPsychologyQuality (philosophy)Developmental psychologyDemographic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has indicated that divorce often weakens the ties between adult children and their parents, affecting the exchange of support in both directions. Most studies of this issue have focused on actual transfers between generations. Much less work has been done about the associated cultural values, norms, and attitudes. Using data from the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (NKPS) we investigated how divorce and re-partnering in either the parent’s or adult child’s generation are related to filial, parental and general family obligations. Contrary to what might be expected, the results show that divorce is positively associated with norms of family obligations, even after controlling for the exchange of support between the generations and the perceived quality of the relationship. Furthermore, there is a link between the type of family obligation and the generation in which the divorce occurred: the respondent’s own divorce history is more strongly and positively correlated to his or her attitudes towards filial obligations, whereas the parents’ divorce history is only positively related to the respondent’s parental obligations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207