MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937886461 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.32.2.247

Child's Emotional Well-being and Parental Marriage Stability in Croatia

2001· article· en· W2937886461 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mira Cudina, Josip Obradović

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMoodMarital statusSocioeconomic statusDemographyPopulationClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research was performed in Croatia, a country differing in social value system from the USA and Western European countries, to test how parental marriage stability affects a child’s emotional reactions or the child’s well-being. Seven hundred and seventy couples and their children were included in the study. Couples were divided into 3 groups, based on the stability of their marriage: intact (N = 234), impaired or distressed (N = 266) and divorced (N = 261). Altogether 1163 children were included in the study. Dependent variables representing child’s emotional wellbeing were: mood instability and frequency of depressive symptoms. Using MANCOVA and ANCOVA statistical procedures and controlling for mother’s and father’s age and education and the child’s age, results were obtained according to which children coming from intact families showed the highest emotional well-being. There was a significant difference in the variables representing the child’s emotional well-being between children coming from intact families and those coming from impaired/distressed and divorced families, and no difference was found in emotional well-being between children coming from impaired/distressed and divorced families. Also, no significant interactions were obtained between the variables marital stability and the child’s gender or the child’s birth order.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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