The Effect of Expanded Parental Benefits on Union Dissolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The aim of the study was to examine whether gender equality‐focused parental benefits affect the union stability of couples. Background Generous, flexible, and gender equality‐focused parental benefits have been shown to increase fathers' use of parental leave and time with children. Even though these policies have no explicit aims regarding relationship stability, two longstanding theoretical perspectives (traditionalist and egalitarian) offer potential mechanisms through which this type of policy can shift relationship dynamics either to increase or to decrease union dissolution. Method Using Canadian administrative data, we estimate difference‐in‐differences and local average treatment effects to examine the effects of the Québec Parental Insurance Plan (QPIP 2006) on union dissolution. Then we examine whether the policy had heterogenous effects on couples which are likely to be either traditional or egalitarian. Results We find that QPIP decreased the separation rate by half of a percentage point overall, a 6% decrease. The greatest reductions in union dissolution are found among couples likely to be more egalitarian in orientation. Conclusion The large negative effects of this family policy on union dissolution are significant, as they show one clear way in which family policies can encourage egalitarianism and stabilize families during the second phase of the gender revolution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".