Marriage and Family Life: A Study of Filipino Transnational Couples Reunited in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to high divorce rates, civil unions and pre-marital cohabitation, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the need for a more relevant pastoral approach to helping married couples. This thesis incorporates a perspective of Roman Catholic pastoral teaching which has a holistic view of the human person, as called to transcend oneself for the sake of others in the face of the prevailing challenges of individualism and materialism. The research is guided by the call of Pope Francis, to help couples focus on “concrete realities” and to avoid presenting “a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families.” In this study, a case study approach is used to test the hypothesis that church group membership, such as that provided by the Movement for Marriage Enrichment (MME), helps couples maintain a stable marriage. It focuses on the lived experience of six couples who are members of the Movement for Marriage Enrichment (MME) a Roman Catholic pastoral support group, and who had been separated by overseas employment and then reunited in Canada. Multiple sources are used for data collection: couple interviews; follow-up interviews for verification and clarification, as well as field notes and observations. Findings of this study support the hypothesis that church group membership, such as that provided by the MME, helps couples maintain a stable marriage. The present study also provides insights into what constitutes the effective approach to providing pastoral care for married migrant couples and their families, called for by Pope Francis at the 2015 Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. In its final report, the Synod emphasized that to be effective, pastoral activity must not only take cognizance of the socio-cultural context of married migrant couples but be implemented with due respect for the human and religious formation from which they come, and for the spiritual richness of their rites and traditions, even by means of a specific pastoral care.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".