Religious Intermarriage in Canada, 1981 to 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Is the social influence of religion weakening as the ranks of the unaffiliated grow and religious attendance falls? Will these changes extend to religion's influence on marriage? This research note contributes to these discussions by examining religious intermarriage as another indicator of religion's social influence. Increased religious intermarriage may indicate a weakening of traditional norms of religious endogamy and a decline in religion's social influence. Descriptive results from examining Canadian census and survey data from 1981 to 2011 show that religious intermarriage increased from 14 percent in 1981 to 19 percent in 2011, but varies by religion and other characteristics. Results from probit models confirm the descriptive findings and further reveal three trends: increasing intermarriage for Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Buddhists; low and stable intermarriage for Hindus and Sikhs; and decreasing intermarriage for Muslims and the unaffiliated. The findings provide a descriptive base for future research to elaborate and explain the different trends and their implications for religion's social influence on marriage and how this may be changing in societies where religious identity and attendance are also changing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".