MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388653472 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3595342/v1

Marriage and couples' well-being in Togo

2023· preprint· en· W4388653472 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pikabe Doni, Adanmadogbé Jules EDORH, Agbessi Augustin DOTO, Ciriaque NUTSUGAN

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Pharmacy, University of MichiganInternational Development Research CentreUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsPoolingContext (archaeology)Ordinary least squaresDemographic economicsMarital statusPolitical scienceGeographySociologyDemographyEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Marriage is considered in the literature as a means of pooling risks and improving the well-being of couples. Thus, the aim of this article is to analyze the relationship between marriage and the well-being of couples in Togo. To do so, we apply the ordinary least squares (OLS) method. Using data from the Enquête Harmonisée sur les Conditions de Vie des Ménages (EHCVM) Togo 2018. We arrive at the results that, marriage positively affects the well-being of married women under monogamy and polygamy, but the well-being of women in common-law unions decreases. However, our results show that marriage negatively affects the well-being of married men in Togo, regardless of their marital status. Furthermore, we find that marriage is a decreasing function of education level in Togo, but that marriage contributes to improved household well-being in the Togolese context. Our results suggest that the provision of social assistance, such as affordable healthcare or employment assistance programs, could help improve the well-being of married men. Further policy implications are proposed in the light of our results. JEL codes : J12, D60, D01

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207