Polygamy and Its Impact on the Upbringing of Children: A Jordanian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of polygamy on the upbringing of children by examining whether polygamous marital structures are beneficial or harmful to children. To obtain data, the researchers conducted two focus group interviews using the multiple case study design, including, talking with twenty one family members from polygamous marriages in Jordan. The results indicated that the husbands felt that polygamy does not adversely affect the family. Husbands also felt that they are the ones responsible for the family’s welfare, in addition to providing their children with all the care and support possible. The wives felt that the care, upbringing, and education of their children was customary, and their spouses did not hold back on any of their responsibilities. They declared that their husbands provided education, proper housing for their children, helped them with their wedding expenses, and there were no effects of multiplicity. They showed their comfort with polygamy as they support such a practice with the condition of being financially supportive and the ability to be fair. Responses of children revealed that their fathers treated them normally, and as siblings, children love each other and did not have any differences. As for polygamy, children support such a practice as a solution to spinsterhood. The researchers believe that it would be valuable to conduct additional research to detect the perspectives of not only those who are involved in polygamous marriages but also other Jordanians from monogamous marriages in order to clearly detect their views of polygamy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".