MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000639402 · doi:10.1017/s0714980814000385

Marital Status, Childlessness, and Social Support among Older Canadians

2014· article· fr· W2000639402 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret J. Penning, Zheng Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildlessnessMarital statusSocial supportDemographyGeographyPsychologyGerontologyDemographic economicsSocioeconomicsSociologyMedicineSocial psychologyFertilityEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite evidence of increasing diversification of family structures, little is known regarding implications of marital and parental status for access to social support in later life. Using data from Statistics Canada's 2007 General Social Survey, this study assessed the impact of marital and parental status intersections on social support among adults aged 60 and older (n = 11,503). Two-stage probit regression models indicated that among those who were currently married or separated/divorced, childless individuals were more likely to report instrumental (domestic, transportation) and emotional support from people outside the household. Conversely, among never-married or widowed older adults, being childless was associated with reduced domestic support but without differences in other support domains. Findings suggest that marital and parental status intersections are not uniformly positive, neutral, or negative regarding implications for extra-household social support. Future work should address complexities of these relationships in order to better understand rapidly changing family structures.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207