Living in precarious partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the UK, cohabitation is now the most common type of first live-in partnership. While some couples go on to marry or separate, others are increasingly choosing to continue to cohabit. One possible explanation for the changing trends in partnership is the growing economic precariousness experienced by young people. This briefing presents findings that suggest there is an economic barrier to stable partnerships and marriage in the UK today, with young people delaying or foregoing marriage because of economic uncertainty. The results show that cohabitors who are financially stable are more likely to marry, while those with unstable jobs or feelings of financial insecurity are more likely to separate. Men’s financial resources play a crucial role, as cohabiting couples are less likely to marry if the man is unemployed or lacks savings. Policymakers should recognise economic precarity as a key cause of partnership instability and address it by implementing policies which create a stable jobs market to help individuals save and plan for the future. Given that over a quarter of cohabiting couples separate within five years, policymakers should also consider the legal protections afforded to cohabitors and explore ways to improve public awareness of the legal implications of cohabitation breakdown.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.008 |
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".