Saying “I Do” in College: Examining Marital Status and Academic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marriage as an undergraduate student is not the norm, as only 7% of undergraduate students are married. Therefore, marital status may have negative consequences for college students’ academic performance, as they navigate marital roles simultaneously with other roles, such as that of student. However, relationship quality may predict how well undergraduates perform academically, with individuals in higher quality marriages performing better than those in lower quality marriages. Thus, the goal of this study is to examine how marital status predicts academic performance and whether or not relationship quality moderates this association. Data for this study comes from an online survey of undergraduate students from a university in the Midwestern United States (N = 111, 81.1% female, 87.4% White/Caucasian, 21.2% married). Results revealed that marital status is negatively associated with cumulative grade point average (GPA) and perception of GPA. There were no significant effects of relationship satisfaction, relationship communication, or the interaction of relationship quality and marital status for academic performance. Implications for academic performance and young adult development will be discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".