Post-Familial Families and the Domestic Division of Labour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines independent living among elderly Brazilians age 65+ of different racial groups using 1980 and 2000 census microsamples. Although there was an overall increase in independent living among Brazilian elders, that increase mainly reflects change among Whites whereas there was little change among Browns or Blacks. Since Whites tend to have higher socioeconomic status than Browns or Blacks in Brazil, one might suppose that a racial disparity merely reflects socioeconomic differences. That is a common argument anyway. But if that were so, then after controlling for socioeconomic factors there should be 1) no racial difference in the likelihood of independent living, and 2) no racial difference hi the change in that likelihood. However, we find 1) net racial differences in independent living in both 1980 and 2000, and 2) a net racial difference in change among unmarried men. Our findings suggest that social, cultural or minority status factors not captured in our statistical models may explain these differences. Additional study is needed to confirm or negate this that will ideally include information about non-coresident as well as coresident kin.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".