Marriage and cohabitation: demographic and socioeconomic differences in Quebec and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Cohabitation has become so prevalent in Canada that it is now the most commonmode of entry into conjugality. Yet in drawing comparisons across Canadianprovinces, cohabitation is far more prevalent in the province of Quebec thanelsewhere. With this in mind, the purpose of the current paper is three fold. First,we set out to briefly situate the recent growth in the number of common-lawunions in Canada and Quebec into a broader historical and international context.Secondly, we review available information from the 2001 Census and the 1998General Social Survey on some of the key socioeconomic and demographiccharacteristics of persons who cohabit relative to those that marry. Thirdly, weconsider how these changes are important to public policy, and of direct interest to legislators andthe Canadian legal system. Major differences are documentedin comparing Quebec with elsewhere in Canada in terms of the education, laborforce participation, median income, income poverty and homeownership. Thedifferences documented between persons who marry relative to cohabiters arefound to be much less in Quebec than elsewhere, in a context wherebycohabitation has become far more widespread, an observation with directimplications for public policy. French La cohabitation est devenue tant prévalente au Canada qu’elle représenteactuellement le mode d’entrée dans la vie conjugale le plus répandu. Cependant,quand on compare entre les provinces canadiennes, la cohabitation est beaucoupplus prévalente dans la province de Québec que dans le reste du pays. En tenantcompte de ce fait, cet article a les trois buts suivant : Premièrement, nousdonnons un bref aperçu de la récente hausse du nombre d’unions de fait dansson plus large contexte historique et international ; deuxièmement, nous révisonsl’information recueillie par le Recensement de 2001 et l’Enquête socialenationale de 1998 au sujet de certaines caractéristiques socioéconomiques etdémographiques clés des personnes qui cohabitent vis à vis de celles qui semarient ; troisièmement, nous examinons le pourquoi et le comment del’importance de ces changements pour les politiques publiques et leur intérêtdirect pour les législateurs et le système juridique canadien. Les différencesmajeures qui existent entre le Québec et le reste du Canada sont documentéesquant aux niveaux d’éducation, de participation à la population active, de revenumoyen, de pauvreté de revenu et de propriété foncière. Il a été trouvé que lesdifférences documentées entre les personnes qui se marient vis à vis celles quicohabitent sont beaucoup moins importantes au Québec qu’ailleurs au pays et cedans un contexte où la cohabitation y est devenue beaucoup plus répandue; uneobservation qui comporte des implications directes pour les politiques publiques.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".