MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229060267 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.53.2.030

Childlessness Among Heterosexual Partnered Individuals: Register-Based Evidence from the Finnish Cohorts Born 1952–1966

2022· article· en· W4229060267 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Saarela, Melissa A. Hardy, Vegard Skirbekk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildlessnessSocioeconomic statusDemographyMarital statusLogistic regressionPopulationPsychologyDemographic economicsFertilitySociologyMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finland has been a demographic forerunner in terms of the adoption of new family forms as well as family friendly social policies. Childlessness has nevertheless grown and, is high compared to many other countries. A large and increasing share of all persons who live in unions are childless. Using population-register data for the cohorts born 1952–1966, we study persons who were partnered at age 45 (n = 44,321). The aim is to analyse how marital status and union duration, together with socioeconomic characteristics of the ego and the partner, relate to the probability of being childless at 45. Logistic regression models are estimated separately for women and men, using a 10-year retrospective window. We find for both men and women, the strongest marker for being a parent by age 45 is whether they are married and had lived with the same partner for at least ten years. Shorter union durations and cohabitations are associated with a several-fold increase in the likelihood of being childless. Socioeconomic characteristics are relevant as well, but notably less important in terms of estimated effect sizes. Future research on this topic should tentatively be concerned with how childlessness relates to transitions into, from, and across unions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.171 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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