Grandchildhood: Adult Grandchildren’s Perception of Their Role towards Their Grandparents from an Intergenerational Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study focuses on adult grandchildren’s perception of their role towards their grandparents according to the perspectives of both generations: the grandchildren and the grandparents. This study proposes a definition of the role of the adult grandchild, including the expectations and obligations deriving from the role. The main theories that provide the conceptual framework for this study are Symbolic Interaction Theory, Exchange Theory and the Intergenerational Solidarity Model. The sample included 216 pairs of adult grandchildren (average age: 24.9) and their grandparents (average age: 78.3), Jewish residents in Israel, who responded to closed questionnaires. The main findings of the research demonstrate that role perception of the adult grandchild is shaped by means of intergenerational transfer and by internalizing norms and behavior patterns of parents. As expected, it was found that perception of the grandchild’s role is more positive among grandchildren who experienced their grandparents as caregivers in their childhood than among grandchildren that did not have the experience of being cared for by grandparents. Grandchildren definitely possess a perception of filial obligation and responsibility toward grandparents and in fact they express more positive opinions than the grandparent regarding this responsibility. Regarding the practical implications of these results for the clinical field of therapy with aging family, the conclusion that adult grandchildren are an integral part of the grandparents’ total support network can contribute to the development of comprehensive psycho-social evaluations, as well as to the development of family treatment programs that involve the third generation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".