Conjugal testamentary practices in Canada: The gendered effect of children from other unions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This article explores the conjugal testamentary practices of married and cohabiting people aged 25–50 depending on having children from other unions, shared children, and gender. Background After the death of a partner, inheriting may reduce adverse financial consequences for the surviving spouse. However, the deceased's will defines whether or not the spouse inherits. Moreover, unmarried people may be less likely than the married to include their partner as one of their heirs, and parents (especially mothers) of children from previous unions may hesitate to bequeath to their current partner. Yet, conjugal testamentary practices remain understudied. Method Using data from Québec, Canada ( N = 3052) and controlling for socio‐demographic factors, multinomial models explore the will status of cohabiting and married people and the position of partners as heirs depending on children situation and gender. Results Although most married people count their current partner as one of their heirs, only a minority of cohabitors do so. Also, cohabiting people with children from previous unions are less likely than those without to make their current partner an heir, especially if the couple has no shared children. In contrast, married women with children from previous unions are as likely as those without to include their spouse among their heirs, and married men are more likely to do so if they have children from a different union. Conclusion Results support the hypotheses of a matrilineal tilt in wealth transmissions as stepfamilies diffuse and of a “swapping families” effect of remarriage for men.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".