MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415846832 · doi:10.1177/0192513x251393174

Toward a Transition Transaction Theory: Understanding the Father–Child Relationship

2025· article· en· W4415846832 on OpenAlexafffund
David S. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsScholarshipTransition (genetics)Database transactionConceptual frameworkNeglectTransaction costCapability approach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the evolving scholarship on the role of fathers in child development, highlighting a shift from historical neglect to contemporary focus. Despite significant advancements in theoretical frameworks, a comprehensive theory specific to the father–child relationship is lacking. Empirical evidence has demonstrated the unique contributions of fathers to child development, yet simultaneous examinations of mothers and fathers are scarce. Persistent conceptual issues, measurement challenges, and the need for inclusive models and theories underscore the importance of this research. To address these gaps, this article proposes the Transition Transaction Theory (TTT) of the father–child relationship. TTT aims to clarify fathering processes and their impact on child development over time, offering a nuanced understanding of the dynamic transitions and transactions in the father–child relationship over time. This theory has the potential to inform future research and practical applications, fostering a deeper appreciation of the father–child relationship in diverse contexts.

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)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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