MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155100750 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67345-1_3

Nonmarital Fertility in Europe and North-America: What Is the Role of Parental SES and Own SES?

2021· book-chapter· en· W3155100750 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Judith C. Koops

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Research CouncilEuropean Commission
KeywordsCohabitationFertilitySocioeconomic statusDemographyNational Survey of Family GrowthPanel surveyGeographyDemographic economicsPsychologySociologyEconomicsPopulationResearch methodologyFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous research has shown that parental as well as own socio-economic status (SES) influence nonmarital fertility. This chapter examines to what extent the effect of parental SES on partner status at first birth is mediated through own SES. Data from the Generations and Gender Survey, British Understanding Society Survey, Dutch Survey on Family Formation, American National Survey on Family Growth, and Canadian General Social Survey are used to examine 16 national contexts. In the majority of countries, the effect of parental SES on the likelihood of having a first birth in cohabitation and in marriage is partly explained by the intergenerational transmission of SES. A direct effect of parental SES is found in Canada, USA, Norway, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, and Romania. The effect of parental SES on the likelihood of having a first birth while being single and in marriage is partly explained by the intergenerational transmission of SES. In the USA, Austria, and Norway, a direct effect of parental SES was also found. The results suggest that in addition to the intergenerational transmission of SES, differences in family aid may influence the transition to adulthood. It is also possible that parental SES influences the motivation and ability to prevent pregnancies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207