Understanding ambivalence in family leisure among three-generation families: ‘It's all part of the package’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although family leisure plays a central role in the development of close family bonds, it is not without its challenges and has been found to be both consensual and conflictual. Furthermore, family leisure researchers have neglected the voices of older adults. Building on Shaw's [1997. “Controversies and Contradictions in Family Leisure: An Analysis of Conflicting Paradigms.” Journal of Leisure Research 29 (1): 98–112] call for a contradictory theory of family leisure and framed by the model of intergenerational ambivalence [Luscher, K., and Pillemer, K. 1998. “Intergenerational Ambivalence: A New Approach to the Study of Parent-child Relations in Later Life.” Journal of Marriage and Family 60 (2): 413–425], the purpose of this interpretive study is to address these two significant gaps in the literature and explore how intergenerational ambivalence is experienced in family leisure in three-generation families (grandparents, parents, and adult grandchildren). Sixteen family triads were interviewed and reflected on both the benefits and challenges of family leisure. The findings provide valuable insights into the ambivalence that is experienced in family leisure across generations. The purposive nature and the generative effect of family leisure, along with the norm of non-interference help families to cope with the feelings of ambivalence that are commonly experienced in their 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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".