Parenthood and well‐being: Examining time pressure and religious practices in a Canadian national sample of immigrants and non‐immigrants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study examined correlates of well‐being amongst a cross‐sectional, national sample of Canadians, focusing on respondents’ parenthood and immigration status. Indirect associations via time pressure and religious practices were examined, in addition to the moderating role of religious practices on the relationship between time pressure and well‐being. Participants were from the 2015 Canadian General Social Survey between 25 and 65 years of age (N = 11,254). A structural regression model revealed that immigrants (vs. non‐immigrants) and parents (vs. non‐parents) had higher levels of time pressure, which strongly and inversely related to well‐being. No interaction between immigrant status and parenthood was observed in the prediction of time pressure. Immigrants had higher levels of religious practices, while parents had lower levels, though a significant interaction suggested that the highest levels of religious practices were for immigrants who were also parents. There was a small but significant positive relationship between religious practices and well‐being. Indirect effects suggested that the association between parenthood/immigrant status and well‐being may partially operate via these parallel pathways (i.e., time pressure and religious practices). There was no evidence that religious practices moderated the relationship between time pressure and well‐being. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".