MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560692710 · doi:10.1080/10502556.2016.1233787

Stepfamily Break-Up: A Qualitative Analysis of Trajectories and Processes

2016· article· en· W2560692710 on OpenAlex
Marie‐Christine Saint‐Jacques, Élisabeth Godbout, Ana Gherghel, Claudine Parent, Sylvie Drapeau, Caroline Robitaille

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Divorce & Remarriage · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsPsychologyStepfamilyQualitative researchQualitative analysisDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stepfamilies are considered to be less stable than first unions. There has been little research conducted that explains why stepfamilies break up or what the viewpoint of the parents and stepparents is. This qualitative study, which was based on life course theory, analyzed the statements made during an interview of 26 parents and stepparents who separated in the first 5 years of their relationship. The results showed that the underlying elements of the separation could be understood by way of past experiences, models, and values acquired during childhood and in previous conjugal relationships. During the stepfamily period, significant events and differences in the partner’s life stages pushed their trajectory from one of stepfamily creation to separation. An analysis of the mechanisms that were set in motion after these events revealed the processes to be integrated in the prevention of conjugal and family difficulties.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.331 · 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