MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505315499

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren and the Implications for Inheritance

2008· article· en· W1505315499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristine S. Knaplund

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily and Matrimonial Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrandparentRaising (metalworking)MandateEstate planningEstateKinshipKinship careStatuteInheritance (genetic algorithm)Political scienceProbateLawSociologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today in the United States, thousands of grandparents are raising their young grandchildren because the children's parents are ill, disabled, imprisoned, or otherwise unable to care for them. This can create problems if the grandparents have not done any estate planning, since intestacy laws mandate that children, rather than grandchildren, receive a decedent's assets in intestacy. This article offers an analysis of the statistical data on how many grandparents are raising their grandchildren, which is part of a broader trend of children being raised by non-parental relatives, or kinship care. This data is further analyzed to determine the likelihood that these grandparents have estate plans. Then, the article discusses the posibility of expanding existing legal doctrines, including equitable adoption and pretermitted child statutes, to solve these types of problems. It also discusses the possibility of adopting a family maintenance system, already in place in New Zealand, Australia, England, and many Canadian provinces, in the United States. The article concludes by discussing what might be the best, and simplest, solution in this situation: having the grandparent either write a will or provide a gift under the Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (UTMA).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicFamily and Matrimonial LawFrench-language works237,207