MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585551317 · doi:10.1177/0091415017691285

A Dyadic Examination of Marital Quality at the Empty-Nest Phase

2017· article· en· W2585551317 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMediationPath analysis (statistics)Quality (philosophy)Partner effectsMarital relationshipDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyNest (protein structural motif)Sociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to achieve a better understanding of the later stages of the family life cycle by exploring couples' marital quality during the empty-nest years of their relationships, using the actor-partner interdependence mediation model. The empty nest is the family stage that begins with the departure of children from home. In the hypothesized model of marital quality, husbands' and wives' satisfaction at having raised successful children serve as predictor variables, whereas their levels of perceived stress act as mediators. A sample of 344 participants, forming 172 heterosexual couples, participated in the study. The results of path analyses indicated that the model provided an acceptable fit for the data. Closer examination suggested that wives' and husbands' perceived stress fully mediate the relationships between husbands' tendency to view their children as successful adults and both spouses' marital quality. The article discusses interdependence and gender differences between spouses concerning their empty-nest experience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.399
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Aging and Human DevelopmentSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207