Bibliographic record
Abstract
Families are a central feature in the debate about how societies will face the challenges of population aging. In much of the contemporary discourse about families they are viewed as fully responsible for the care and support of their older members, with national differences in whether this responsibility is seen as a societal obligation or an unreasonable burden. Researchers and policy makers have expressed rising concerns about how structural changes to families and their increasing geographic mobility may threaten their caring capacity. Across regions and countries, there is considerable research on whether older adults are embedded in stable family networks from which they can draw support if needed. A more muted theme about the place of families in the lives of older adults places older persons as agents rather than passive recipients in their families. Within this body of literature, there is evidence of the important role of older adults in strengthening cohesion in families, fostering generational connections and caring for younger family members. The transfer of resources from older to younger members is an important feature in both marginalized and affluent families in different regions of the world. It illustrates the way that older adults provide stability to their families in the face of rapid social change. In this paper an overview is presented of the international literature on these complex issues of the place of families in the lives of older adults. Myths about families, regional variation in beliefs about their roles and obligations, and evidence of family structure and household composition of older persons are addressed and regional differences considered.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".