MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999383052 · doi:10.29173/cjfy29500

Is Divorce Predictable among Iranian Couples?

2020· article· en· W2999383052 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gholamhosein Shahraki, Zahra Sedaghat, Mohammad Fararouei, Zibaneh Tabeshfar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeUnemploymentAccommodationDemographyPsychologyMedicineFamily incomeSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Divorce is considered as an important social and public health concern worldwide. The aim of this study was to identify divorce’s social and economic contributors among Iranian couples. This case-control study was conducted on 60 divorced and their neighboring 64 still-married couples with approximately the same date of marriage. The required information was obtained from consultant administrated forms which are used routinely by Iranian family consulting centers. An interview-administered questionnaire with almost the same structure and questions was used to obtain information from still-married couples. Based on the results of multivariable analysis and (stepwise) selection of the study variables, significant associations between divorce and employment of both husbands and wives, education of husband, and the couple’s accommodation statuses were found. Accordingly, wife's (OR unemployed/self-employed=4.97, 95%CI: 1.38-21.61, P=0.001) and husband's (OR unemployed/self-employed =17.45, 95%CI: 3.56-123.98, P=0.001) unemployment, less educated husband's (OR primary or secondary/higher education =23.98, 95%CI=4.04-237.05, p=0.001) and couples with shared accommodation (OR dependent/independent= 5.99, 95%CI=2.54-17.72, P<0.001) were at higher risk of divorce. ROC analysis suggested that divorce can be confidently predicted by the above factors (AUC=0.882 95%CI: 0.816-0.948) with 66.7% sensitivity and 92.6% specificity. This study introduced several predictors, which can be used by family consultants and psychologists to recognize high risk marrying or married couples to prevent divorce and to help couples to obtain and sustain healthier marriages and stronger family relationships.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la JeunesseSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207