Challenges to coparenting posed by military life and strategies used by fathers and mothers to overcome them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Research has documented the challenges of military life for family member well-being and adjustment, as well as parent-child and marital relationships; yet few studies have considered how military life affects coparenting (i.e., collaboration and mutual support as parents, focusing on the impact of deployment). This study aimed to 1) describe the challenges posed by various demands of military life for coparenting in Canadian military families and 2) explore strategies used to face these challenges and how they may enhance or hinder coparenting. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 fathers and 15 mothers from Canadian families headed by a military father and a civilian mother. Interviews explored coparenting using Feinberg's framework of coparenting. Thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted. Results: Mothers and fathers described various challenges, including direct and indirect consequences of military life on coparenting. Some parents noted advantages of military life for coparenting. Challenges pertained to agreement about child-rearing and education or support and undermining the other parent, but mainly focused on division of labour and joint family management. Strategies to overcome these challenges related to father involvement, agreement and joint decision making, coparenting dynamics, and individual cognitive strategies. Discussion: Fathers and mothers reported several challenges to coparenting that were directly and indirectly tied to the father's military employment. Strategies adopted generally enhanced coparental collaboration, although solo-parenting by mothers was also reported. Joint family management should be prioritized in services and family policy to support military parents' active roles in their families and the overall resilience of military families.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".