MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Age and intergenerational exchange among older parents in rural China

2011· article· en· W2168847624 on OpenAlexaff
Dongmei Zuo, Zheng Wu, Shuzhuo Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Welfare · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptLife course approachChinaWelfareCohortSocial exchange theoryDemographic economicsDemographyPsychologySociologyGerontologyEconomicsDevelopmental psychologyGeographyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zuo D, Wu Z, Li S. Age and intergenerational exchange among older parents in rural China Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: S30–S46 © 2011 The Author(s), International Journal of Social Welfare © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. This study examined life‐course differences in the flow of intergenerational exchange in rural China. The analysis used longitudinal data and growth curve models to decompose the distinct effects of age and cohort on the receipt and provision of economic and instrumental support among elder parents and their adult children. The study highlighted the importance of examining the age trajectories of intergenerational support according to cohort‐specific experiences and family life stage. There was a net age effect on intergenerational exchange, with elder parents tending to receive more support from children over time. However, there were indeed significant cohort effects that represented socio‐historical variation in the relationship between aging and intergenerational exchange. The study also observed gender differences in the flow and growth of intergenerational exchange.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social WelfareSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207