Young Children’S Emotional Well-Being After Parental Divorce: Discrepancies Between “Resilient” and “Vulnerable” Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examined young (4 to 7 years old) children’s resilience under the stressors of parental divorce. Resilience was indirectly inferred based on constructs such as attention, emotional and behavioral regulation, ability to take initiatives, positive relationships with others and parents’ sensitive response to child’s needs. It was conducted with a representative sample of 130 divorced parents from different regions in Greece. Based on parents’ perception concerning the level of competence and adversity that children had faced due to divorce the sample was divided into two groups (a) those families who considered the child of reference as more ‘vulnerable’ (38.5%,) and those who considered the child as more ‘resilient’(61.5%). Data showed that children who were considered as adaptive to divorce stressors exhibited more positive outcomes compared to children who considered by their parents as at risk. The gender of the child did not interact with the experience of transition with respect of the wellness components. This study also considered the possible discrepancies between the two groups of children in some factors that have been related to children’s well-being after divorce. Thus, another important finding revealed that the parents of the ‘more resilient’ children experienced less parental stress, had more supportive relationships with their ex-spouses, felt more satisfied with their lives and quarreled less with their children. In agreement with previous studies this paper underlined the necessity of studying divorce under the concept of resilience rather than the risk, shedding light on some of the critical protective factors.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".