Reasons for Separation and Divorce, Coparenting, and Child Behavioral and Emotional Difficulties: A Common Fate Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite reasons for separation and divorce being critical to understanding coparenting and children's adjustment, they are often overlooked risk factors. Additionally, by incorporating both partners' perspectives, dyadic data help us fully understand the interplay between reasons for separation/divorce, coparenting, and child adjustment. Using data from 926 separating or divorcing heterosexual couples in a coparenting educational program, we explore the indirect effects from partners' shared perceptions of two common reasons for divorce (family violence and parenting differences) to children's behavioral and emotional problems via coparenting, utilizing the common fate mediation model. Results indicated that the indirect effects from shared perceptions of both family violence and parenting differences as reasons for divorce on both children's behavioral and emotional problems were significant. Extra-dyadic analyses indicate that women's unique perceptions of both reasons for divorce were indirectly connected to their perceptions of children's behavioral and emotional problems via their perceptions of coparenting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".