MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013073657 · doi:10.1017/s0714980809990146

Cultural Preferences and Economic Constraints: The Living Arrangements of Elderly Canadians

2009· article· fr· W2013073657 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Kaida, Melissa Moyser, Stella Y. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyEthnologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTUsing data from the 2001 Census Public Use Microdata Files on Individuals, we examine the role of cultural preferences and economic constraints in elderly Canadians' choice of living arrangements (living with one's children and/or other relatives versus living independently). We find that members of ethnic groups holding familistic cultural values (Italian, Chinese, South Asian, and East Indian) are more likely than their individualistic counterparts (British, German, and Dutch) to live with kin. Economic disadvantage also entails a greater likelihood of living with kin. However, the relative importance of cultural preferences and economic constraints as determinants of living arrangements among the elderly depends on marital status. Among the married, cultural preferences explain a greater proportion of the variation in living arrangements; among the non-married, economic constraints do. This research contributes a more nuanced understanding of living arrangements among the elderly than its predecessors, which neglected the role of marital status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207