Transformation of Partnership Formation in Eastern Europe: The Legacy of the Past Demographic Divide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses the transformation in the mode of partnership formation in seven countries of Eastern Europe. The aim of the study is to provide an up-to-date account of the switch from direct marriage to non-marital cohabitation as it has progressed from the 1960s to the mid-2000s, using data from the Generations and Gender Surveys. Unlike previous analyses of partnership formation, we examined the extent to which crossnational variations, in the onset and scale of transformation characteristic of the Second Demographic Transition (SDT), could be linked to nuptiality regimes that existed in the region in the 19th and early 20th centuries. With few exceptions, the results support the notion of correspondence between historical and contemporary patterns. Forerunners in the transition to partnership formation outside marriage tend to come from areas which exhibited a late/low prevalence of marriage; the latecomers are typically situated east of the Hajnal line. Thus our study corroborates earlier findings pertaining to the legacy the historical marriage patterns, extending them further, from the onset of the first to the second demographic transition. Our results are also in line with idea of the spatial continuity across successive waves of demographic innovation demonstrated in several studies for Western Europe. The findings reported in the article make a similar argument for Eastern Europe. In a broader framework, the results point to diversity of pathways along which family and fertility characteristic of the SDT have evolved. In view of the evidence presented in the article, Eastern Europe seems to embody two variants with regard to synchronism between a shift from direct marriage to non-marital cohabitation and postponement of childbearing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".