In it Together: Relationship Transitions and Couple Concordance in Health and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Events that change the family system have the potential to impact couple dynamics such as concordance, that is, partner similarity in health and well-being. This project analyzes longitudinal data (≥ two decades) from both partners of up to 3,501 German and 1,842 Australian couples to investigate how couple concordance in life satisfaction, self-rated health, mental health, and physical health might change with transitioning to parenthood and an empty nest. Results revealed couple concordance in intercepts (averaged <i>r</i> = .52), linear trajectories (averaged <i>r</i> = .55), and wave-specific fluctuations around trajectories (averaged <i>r</i> = .21). Concordance in linear trajectories was stronger after transitions (averaged <i>r</i> = .81) than before transitions (averaged <i>r</i> = .43), whereas no systematic transition-related change in concordance of wave-specific fluctuations was found. Findings emphasize that shared transitions represent windows of change capable of sending couples onto mutual upward or downward trajectories in health and well-being.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".