Migration, Marriage, and Cohabitation Among Hispanic Immigrant Women in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research shows links between the timing of migration and family formation, particularly childbearing, among Hispanic immigrants in the United States, with implications for women's socioeconomic well-being. However, temporal connections between migration and union formation, particularly non-marital cohabiting unions, remain underexplored. As cohabiting unions have long coexisted with marriage in parts of Latin America, this omission may be particularly misrepresentative of the family formation strategies of Hispanic immigrants. Drawing on data from the National Survey of Family Growth (2011-2017), I examined the association between the timing of migration and entry into first marital or non-marital (cohabiting) union, treating marriage and cohabitation as competing events for first union type. Among women whose first union was non-marital, I also examined the relationship between migration and the likelihood of transitioning out of the non-marital union, either through marriage or union dissolution. Results showed that marriage formation was high the year of migration, and increased again only after 6 years post-migration, whereas cohabitation was high the year of migration and continued to increase with each period following migration. Furthermore, non-marital unions formed prior to migration were likely to transition to marriage or dissolve, while those formed after migration were likely to remain non-marital. These findings point to distinctions in the types of partnerships formed before and after migration and to the salience of non-marital unions for women who migrate unpartnered, demonstrating the need for further research on the socioeconomic integration and well-being of unmarried or cohabiting immigrant women, and the dynamic connections between migration, gender, and family.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".