MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013744461 · doi:10.1080/15350770801955115

Grandparent Health and Young Adults' Judgments of Their Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships

2008· article· en· W2013744461 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 Intergenerational Relationships · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrandparentPsychologyGrandchildDevelopmental psychologyPerceptionSocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Using the Common-Sense Model of illness representations (Leventhal, Myer, & Nerenz, 1980 Leventhal, H., Meyer, D. and Nerenz, D. 1980. “The common sense representation of illness danger”. In Contributions to medical psychology, Edited by: Rahcman, S. Vol. 2, 7–30. New York: Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar]) as a framework, we investigated impairment-related variables as predictors of young adults' experiences in relationships with ill/disabled grandparents. Undergraduates (N = 153) completed a questionnaire about their relationships with grandparents who lived with cognitive, physical, or psychological impairment(s). The extent to which participants worried about their grandparents' health/wellbeing and their perceptions of (a) the severity of their grandparents' impairments and (b) the degree to which these impairments affected areas of their own lives were predictors. Satisfaction with contact, investment in the relationship, and family strain resulting from the grandparents' impairment served as criterion variables. Results support the utility of examining grandparent health in research on grandparent-grandchild relationships.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.235 · 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