MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551245520 · doi:10.1177/0192513x16680090

Gender, Marital Status, and Mental Health: A Test of the Sex Role Hypothesis in India

2016· article· en· W2551245520 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Strohschein, Usha Ram

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyMarital statusTest (biology)InequalityNegative binomial distributionDemographyPopulationSociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Received wisdom says marriage correlates with better health, but men derive a greater benefit than do women. These perceptions persist even though the latter, known as the sex role hypothesis, no longer receives unqualified support. Some researchers attribute declining evidence for the sex role hypothesis to greater gender equality. Such arguments, however, may best apply to Western, developed countries where gains in women’s status have been largest. To date, few researchers have explored these issues in non-Western, developing countries. This study is the first to explore sex-specific differences in the association between marital status and mental health in India, a country with high levels of gender inequality. Data come from the Youth in India Situation and Needs survey, with analysis restricted to 19,163 young adults aged 20 to 24. Results from negative binomial regression models supported the sex role hypothesis. The implications of these findings are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
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 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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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