Income pooling strategies among cohabiting and married couples
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Studies explaining why cohabiters are more likely to keep money separate than spouses have mainly focused on selection processes, without taking into account the heterogeneity within both union types in levels of commitment. Cross-national studies are rare and have predominantly included Northern and Western European countries, the United States, and Canada. Objective: This study explains the higher likelihood of cohabiters to keep income separate by selection as well as commitment factors and explores country differences, including countries from Central and Eastern Europe. Methods: Using data from the Generations and Gender Surveys of Bulgaria, France, Georgia, Germany, Romania, and Russia, N=41, 456 cohabiting and married individuals are studied. Binary logistic regression models of the likelihood that respondents keep money separate are calculated. Results: Across countries, higher education, female labor market participation, both partners being employed, short union duration, absence of joint children, presence of separation thoughts, and (for cohabiters) a lack of marital intentions are the most persistent correlates of keeping money separate. Differences between cohabiters and married couples are reduced when selection and commitment are taken into account, but are still significant. Cross-national variation in the effect of cohabitation on keeping separate purses is persistent. Conclusions: Different money management strategies of cohabiters and spouses can be explained to some extent by selection processes and inherent differences in the level of commitment within cohabitation and marriage. Countries also differ in the socio-economic context and norms concerning the way intimate relationships are organized which might lead to persistent differences in the way cohabiting and married couples organize their income.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it