L'orientation et le contenu des relations réciproques des personnes âgées
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract If many efforts have been undertaken by the scientific community in the last years to better understand the interactions between seniors and their informal support network, understanding of their reciprocal relations remain incomplete. In a context of “young” and “old,” where the later group is becoming larger, coexist longer because of increased life expectancy, and where the redistribution of public resources seems to favour seniors, the private inter-generation solidarity takes on considerable importance. These solidarities are especially expressed by helping each other, and this varies depending on the actors involved. This article attempts to describe the orientation and the content of the reciprocal relationships of seniors and to identify the principal determinants of such relations in Quebec. The data come from the Survey of Aging and Independence study undertaken by Statistics Canada in 1991. The results show that about two out of five seniors have this type of relationship and most often with their spouse. For individuals who no longer have a spouse, children, and particularly a daughter become privileged partners. This study also shows that exchanges of help with friends and/or neighbours prove to be essential when seniors live alone. These actors could even become essential in the future for the upholding of the autonomy of these “grandpa-boomers” who are less well surrounded in later life in terms of descendants than the seniors of today. Finally, very old men with small incomes, living alone in an urban setting and with few or no surviving children are the least likely to experience reciprocity with their entourage.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".