Grandparent Health and Young Adults' Judgments of Their Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".