Type and timing of first union formation in Québec and the rest of Canada: Continuity and change across the 1930–79 birth cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trends in age at marriage have been well documented, but less is known about age at first union among recent cohorts of Canadians. Using the 2011 GSS, I document changes in the type and timing of first union formation among Canadians born over five decades, and examine how regional differences in partnering behaviours have changed over time. The trend away from entering marriage directly has continued among Canadians born in the 1970s, but Québec-Canada differences have narrowed. The trend towards later marriage has continued, but age at first union has not changed across the five cohorts under study.Les tendances en ce qui a trait à l’âge au mariage ont été bien documentées, mais moins est connu quant à l’âge à la première union chez les dernières cohortes de Canadiens. À partir de données provenant de l’ESG de 2011, je documente les changements au niveau du type et du moment de la formation de premières unions auprès de Canadiens nés au cours de cinq décennies et j’examine en quelle mesure les différences régionales quant aux comportements liés au partenariat ont changé au fil du temps. La tendance à délaisser l’entrée directe au mariage a continué chez les Canadiens nés dans les années 1970, mais l’écart Québec-Canada a diminué. La tendance vers le mariage plus tardif a continué, mais l’âge à la première union n’a pas changé à travers les cinq cohortes à l’étude.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".