MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210762164 · doi:10.1177/0192513x211054466

A Cohort Comparison of Midlife Marital Quality: A Quarter Century of Change

2021· article· en· W3210762164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew R. Wright, Susan L. Brown, Wendy D. Manning

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBowling Green State University
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyHappinessPsychologyCohortMarital statusGerontologyCohort effectMedicineGeographyPopulationSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marital quality has been declining among recent cohorts, but whether this pattern characterizes middle-aged and older married adults is largely unknown. The doubling of the divorce rate among persons over the age of 50 years foretells poorer quality marriages for today's midlife adults than a generation ago. Combining data on married individuals aged 50-65 years from the 1987-88 National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) and the 2013 Families and Relationships Study, we conduct a cohort comparison of five dimensions of midlife marital quality. Today's older adults report more marital disagreement and instability as well as less fairness and interaction with their spouses than their counterparts did a generation ago. The two cohorts report comparable levels of marital happiness. Consistent with the upward trend in divorce during the second half of life, the quality of midlife marriages appears to have declined over the past quarter century.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207