MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394941971 · doi:10.3917/popu.2303.0431

Children’s Residence After Parental Separation: Arrangement Diversity and Associated Factors in Quebec

2024· article· fr· W4394941971 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Arnaud Régnier‐Loilier, Amandine Baude

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation (English Edition) · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente la diversité des arrangements résidentiels après la séparation parentale et examine les caractéristiques associées au partage du temps entre les parents. L’étude s’appuie sur les données de l’Enquête longitudinale auprès des parents séparés et recomposés du Québec conduite en 2018. L’analyse descriptive met d’abord en lumière, sur la base d’un calendrier de 28 nuitées complété par 677 mères et 599 pères, la très grande diversité des organisations résidentielles, avec des transitions entre les deux résidences qui s’opèrent le plus souvent autour du week-end et du mercredi. Un panorama contrasté ressort cependant selon le sexe du parent ayant répondu à l’enquête. L’analyse multivariée permet d’identifier plusieurs facteurs associés aux arrangements résidentiels, tels que le revenu et le niveau d’éducation des parents, leur situation d’activité au moment de la séparation, leur pays de naissance, l’initiateur de la séparation, le contexte relationnel au moment de celle-ci, l’âge et le sexe des enfants. Ainsi, malgré la progression de la résidence partagée au cours des dernières décennies au Québec, d’importants contrastes demeurent quant aux modalités de résidence des enfants après la séparation.

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)0.003
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation (English Edition)Same topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207