MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738442698 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.46.4.483

Family Complexity in Rural South Africa: Examining Dynamism in Children’s Living Arrangement and the Role of Kin

2015· article· en· W2738442698 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sangeetha Madhavan, Alyssa T. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamismVariation (astronomy)DemographyLife course approachNuclear familyExtended familySociologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well established that Black African children in South Africa live in complex living arrangements. Far less, however, is known about the dynamism in children’s living arrangements over the life course or the extent to which kin group characteristics influence the intensity of change in these arrangements. In this article, we draw on data collected on 337 children aged 0-21 embedded in 13 kin groups in Mpumalanga, South Africa to (a) describe the types of living arrangements that children are in at the time of birth and in 2002; (b) examine the extent of change and stability in living arrangements over two points in time; (c) describe the variation in the intensity of change in living arrangements over the life course; and (d) analyze the extent to which kin group characteristics help explain this variation. Our analysis shows that most children are in the same living arrangement at birth and in 2002 but that those born into a nuclear arrangement are most likely to change. Moreover, we also found considerable variation in the number of changes in living arrangements that children experience over the life course. The proportion of dependents in the kin group and the living arrangement at the time of birth explained some of this variation controlling for age and parental attributes.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207