Are separated/divorced same sex families more likely to establish equal coparenting? A preliminary outcome from a <scp>court‐based</scp> program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we examine the impact of inconsistent laws and possible judicial bias on children's opportunities to experience interaction and support from all parents, when those same parents separate/divorce. The Family Resolutions Specialty Court (FRSC) in Massachusetts provides a model through which procedures support all parents and minimize bias by engaging parental involvement collaboratively. Using exploratory data collected and analyzed from separated/divorced same sex and heterosexual parenting plans developed by families in FRSC (N = 50; 86% heterosexual, 14% same sex), we examine children's living arrangements regarding daytime parenting time and the number of overnights with the non‐primary parent, as well as the consistency of parenting schedules. Results identified a tendency among same sex parents to establish parenting plans that were more equal between partners and consistent across weeks. This small study adds to the emerging literature exploring coparenting among same sex parents post‐separation/divorce by contextualizing this preliminary finding and setting the stage for more rigorous analysis of differences in parenting plans and coparenting post separation/divorce between heteronormative and queer families.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".