Grandparents as Regular Child Care Providers: Unrecognised, Under-Valued and Under-Resourced
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Australia, nearly one quarter of all 0-4-year-olds in child care are in the ‘informal’ care of grandparents (ABS, 2003). There is also evidence that the courts are assigning increasing numbers of children to the custodial care of grandparents. While there is a considerable body of descriptive literature that reports on the incidence and nature of grandparenting in relation to the custodial care of children, little is known about grandparents who are regular child care providers. This article draws from a larger study that sought to gain insights into grandparents' experiences as regular child care providers for children below school age. While these grandparents chose to care for their grandchildren they were also involved in balancing this responsibility with their own work commitments, their leisure activities, and a sense of family obligation. The grandparents' stories of their experiences highlight the need for greater recognition of the role grandparents play in supporting family cohesiveness and the contribution they make to society as a whole.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".