MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119056193 · doi:10.1111/cdev.13496

Family Structure, Family Instability, and Child Psychological Well-Being in the Context of Migration: Evidence From Sequence Analysis in China

2021· article· en· W3119056193 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yao Lu, Ruochen Zhang, Haifeng Du

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaChiang Ching-Kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyContext (archaeology)ChinaQuarter (Canadian coin)Persistence (discontinuity)Family disruptionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study conceptualizes parental migration as a dynamic family process that exposes children to parental absence and family instability. Using detailed migration histories, this study identifies the left-behind trajectories of rural Chinese children throughout childhood (age 1-12) and examines the impact on psychological well-being (N = 3,961). Results indicate heterogeneity in children's experience of parental migration, which is characterized by both persistence (prolonged parental absence) and instability (repeated parental migration). A quarter of rural children experienced prolonged parental migration, and for half of these, by both parents. Another 50% of rural children experienced repeated parental migration. Children continuously left behind by both parents and children who experienced substantial family instability both fared worse in psychological development than those in stable two-parent families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.301
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations70
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207