‘Returning the love’, not ‘balancing the books’: talk about delayed reciprocity in supporting ageing parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A desire to ‘return’ or ‘pay back’ past care has been identified as a potential motivator of support provided by adult children to their ageing parents. The purpose of this study is to examine whether, how and in what ways adult children interpret and apply the concept of delayed reciprocity in filial relationships. Twenty-eight men and women supporting one or both ageing parent(s) in a Western Canadian city participated in a qualitative study of filial responsibility. Data were analysed interpretively, using thematic coding, contextualised reflection and guiding questions. Findings suggest delayed reciprocity is limited as an interpretive framework for describing parent support. Overall, comments reflected qualification or rejection of ‘paying back’ in the sense of a filial contract. Delayed reciprocity appears for most participants to symbolise imbalance, expectedness or obligation, and a lack of affection. In response, participants tended to reject delayed reciprocity in favour of interpretations emphasising mutuality, family role duties and reciprocated love. Findings are discussed in relation to interpretive purposes, symbolic meanings of parent support, participant characteristics and cultural contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".