MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389300291 · doi:10.1080/10502556.2023.2290899

Understanding Fathers’ Involvement Relative to the Other Parent After Parental Separation

2023· article· en· W4389300291 on OpenAlex
Karl Larouche, Tamarha Pierce, Sylvie Drapeau, Marie‐Christine Saint‐Jacques

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Divorce & Remarriage · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoparentingPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySeparation (statistics)Intervention (counseling)Child custodyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following parental separation, fathers' greater or lesser parental involvement relative to the other parent may be differently accounted for by father, child, and coparental factors. A representative sample of 671 separated fathers completed questionnaires two and four years after separation. For fathers less involved than the other parent, a better coparenting relationship accounts for greater T1 involvement, but predicts a decrease in involvement by T2. For fathers more involved than the other parent, a better coparenting relationship accounts for more balanced involvement of both parents at T1 and T2. For all fathers, more custody time accounts for greater T1 and T2 involvement and greater psychological well-being accounts for greater T1 involvement. Implications for intervention and research are discussed.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.213 · 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