MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390598410 · doi:10.1177/0192513x231226149

Longitudinal Association Between the Quality of the Separated Parents’ Relationship and the Frequency of Father–Child Contact: The Mothers’ Perspective

2024· article· en· W4390598410 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sylvie Drapeau, Karl Larouche, Hans Ivers, Sarah Dussault, Amandine Baude

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Perspective (graphical)PsychologyLongitudinal studyDevelopmental psychologyLatent growth modelingQuality (philosophy)Longitudinal dataChild custodyDemographyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This longitudinal study is based on family systems theory and aims to explore the association between the quality of the separated parents' relationship and the frequency of father-child contact up to five years after parental separation. Using data collected from 408 families from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (QLSCD), multilevel analyses and latent growth curve model were carried out. The results highlight a positive association between the separated parents' relationship and father-child contact and demonstrate the impact of the initial contact frequency on the evolution over time of the separated parents' relationship. They also highlight the contribution of custody tension, the child's age, the length of time the couple lived together, and the socio-economic status on the initial levels of the studied trajectories.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207