MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159577497 · doi:10.1177/0192513x06291498

What Accounts for Race and Ethnic Differences in Parental Financial Transfers to Adult Children in the United States?

2006· article· en· W2159577497 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 Family Issues · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupRace (biology)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyDemographyDemographic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Financial assistance that parents give to their young adult children is part of the bundle of flows that constitutes intergenerational support. Are there racial and ethnic differences in this financial assistance, and if so, why? Wave 2 data from the Health and Retirement Study ( N = 17,996) suggest group differences in both the incidence and amount of annual support given to nonresident adult children. Structural inequalities in the form of economic resources, family structure, and health account for most group differences, a finding counter to recent research emphasizing culture and behavioral practices. Economic resources most strongly account for less giving in African American families than in other groups. For Latinos, income and parental education are most vital. Parental health and family size are also important predictors of group differences. African American and Latino families help compensate for the differences in financial transfers with coresidence, extended family exchange, and proximity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.252 · 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