MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Negotiating Inequality Among Adult Siblings: Two Case Studies

2007· article· en· W1974500544 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marriage and the Family · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationSiblingAmbivalenceSibling relationshipSocioeconomic statusInequalityPerspective (graphical)Life course approachPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologySociologyPopulationDemographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qualitative instrumental case study analysis of adult siblings from 2 families explores how socioeconomic inequality among them affects their relationships to one another. Eight middle‐aged siblings’ observations of childhood, parental expectations, work and family history, lifestyle, and current sibling ties indicate that childhood interdependence, parallel parental treatment, similar intergenerational mobility, greater success of the younger rather than older siblings, and economic success due to other than individual effort facilitate smoother negotiations of material inequality and enhance the negotiation of sibling relationships as important sources of support. These new insights on negotiating sibling ties over time are related to various forms of capital, a life course perspective, and ambivalence, and point to fresh avenues for future research and theory.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.323 · 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