Rethinking theoretical and methodological issues in intergenerational family relations research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper introduces some key theoretical and methodological developments in the study of intergenerational family relations. It draws on observations that a number of social issues are emerging that have an intergenerational dimension, that there is growing recognition that to study adult ageing one has also to study intergenerational relationships, and that a new architecture for social relations is beginning to take shape in the wake of demographic change. How individuals, families and societies cope with such changes provokes the question of how gerontologically-informed research, theorisation and policy will also adapt. Seven positions are summarised which attempt two things. First, to map out some new conceptual directions for intergenerational research through a critical use of concepts such as transition, generational self-awareness and empathy, metaphors of cultural translation, and the deployment of social and moral capital. Second, to examine changing gender roles, the balance between family and welfare-state support frameworks, ethnicity and immigration as important elements of this process. A critical review of approaches to intergenerational relationships hopefully emerges.
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 | 0.212 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".