MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764324617 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.45.3.405

Who Remains Unpartnered by Mid-Life in Norway? Differentials by Gender and Education

2014· article· en· W2764324617 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenneth Aarskaug Wiik, Lars Dommermuth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorwegianOddsMarital statusDemographyCohabitationPsychologyGerontologyOdds ratioMedicineGeographySociologyPopulationLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data on men and women born 1927 to 1968 from the Norwegian Gender and Generations Survey (N = 8,813), we examine differentials in remaining without experience from a marital or non-marital union by age 40. We are particularly interested in differentials by gender and education, as well as changes across birth cohorts. 6.5% of the respondents (7.8% of the men and 5.2% of the women) had no union experience by age 40. Multivariate results confirmed that the odds of remaining unpartnered by age 40 decreased across the birth cohorts studied here, particularly among women. Separate models for men and women confirmed that primary educated men had the highest odds of remaining unpartnered. Among women, on the other hand, those with a university education had significantly higher odds of not having had union experience by age 40 compared with their lower educated counterparts. Results from interaction models confirmed that higher educated men have become increasingly likely to remain unpartnered. Among women, we found no evidence for a changing importance of education for remaining unpartnered by age 40.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations33
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207