MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552907058 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.37.3.325

Changing Courses: The Pendulum of Family Transitions in Comparative Perspective

2006· article· en· W2552907058 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Barbara Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife course approachCensusVariety (cybernetics)Family lifePerspective (graphical)SociologyPoliticsCommissionBaby boomAssertionGender studiesPolitical sciencePopulationDemographyPsychologySocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on changing and emergent patterns of family-related transitions to adulthood over the past century. Particular attention will be paid to contextualizing contemporary transitions to adulthood (i.e., leaving and returning to parental homes as “boomerang kids” and the timing of marriage and parenthood) using historical data, particularly from the 1950s until the tum of the 21st century. Although emphasis is on Canadian patterns, international comparisons are made with the U.S., Britain, Italy and Sweden. Data are presented from a variety of primary and secondary sources, including Statistics Canada, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Key findings question the commonly-held assertion that contemporary transitions are fraught with chaos and uncertainty. Instead, the family life course can be conceptualized as elastic and flexible in response to unique and changing ecological environments. In light of the significant socio-demographic, economic and political transformations facing families, implications relevant to the fluctuating life course patterns of young men, young women, and their midlife, parents will be highlighted.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations32
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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