GUEST EDITORS’ NOTE AND INTRODUCTION
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The current aging of the global population is unrivaled in human history. According to United Nations projections, by 2050 the number of people over the age of 60 will have increased from its current level of 600 million to over two billion-more than doubling the percentage of the world's population over 60 from 10 to 22 percent (United Nations Secretariat, 2008). Not only is the number of elders increasing but the fastest growing segments of the elder population are persons aged 80 or older. These oldest old will account for 20 percent of the elder population by 2050.There is little agreement regarding how global aging will impact social institutions and economies. Some researchers and commentators wow that increased numbers of elders will result in increased demands on health and social welfare systems, dependency ratios and income transfers from working age to elder populations, resulting in overwhelming tax burdens on younger generations (e.g., Kotlinkoff & Scott, 2004). Other analyses dismiss such doom and gloom scenarios (e.g., Schulz & Binstock, 2008) and argue that the elders of the future will be healthier, more productive, and less of a social burden than previous generations.There is, however, general agreement that the increased elder population will impact interfamily relationships (Caro, 2006; Administration on Aging, 2008). This is not surprising as even in the wealthiest of nations, families often provide the majority of care and serve as a primary source of support for the elder population. In May 2008.65 members of the Committee on Family Research (RC06) of the International Sociological Association gathered at Lasell College in Newton Massachusetts to discuss how aging is impacting families and households in a global context. The 10 papers included in this special issue of the Journal of Comparative Family Studies resulted from presentations and discussions from the Lasell College meeting.The 10 papers in this issue reflect a range of analytic methods and cover a range of topics of growing importance for families and the field of family studies. Seven papers focus on family relationships and possible motivations among family members to provide elder care, one paper focuses on professional care providers and the need for culturally competent care services, another focuses on violence against aged persons, while one focuses more broadly on the construct of generation. We've ordered the papers to start with Susan McDaniel's discussion of the social construct of generation as it not only provides an instructive overview of the concept but her suggestion that (G)eneration as a relational, familial concept, opens policy to exploring who does what in relation to whom, and for whom, provides a stage for the papers that follow.The next six papers consider social contexts and interpersonal relationships and their effects on family caregiving to elder relations. Immediately following the McDaniel's paper is a comparison of kinship relations in Germany, Russia, and the People's Republic of China by Bernhard Nauck. Nauck's theoretical model integrates the institutional approach of cultural anthropology and the interactionist approach of family sociology and social gerontology to test the dimensions of structural, emotional, and functional solidarity of kin relationships. His analysis suggests not only the importance of combining macro and micro perspectives but also provides a useful framework for subsequent family relationship research.Following Nauck, Chin-chun Yi and Ju-ping Lin examine type5 of relationships between adult children and elderly parents in Taiwan and whether declining intergenerational coresidence will diminish the traditional filial norm of caring for one's parents. Daniela Klaus analyzes the relative explanatory power of attachment and obligation to one's parent, altruism, and reciprocity as reasons why adult children support their parents using a German sample. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,100 | 0,061 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».