Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergenerational coresidence can be associated with precarious circumstances, such as an adult child who is supported by an older parent, an older parent living in the household of an adult child, or the two generations living together and supporting each other. The French Family and Housing survey that was linked to the 2011 census is used to explore how multi-generational households are organised. The results confirm that this type of household continues to exist and should be considered other than a form of living arrangement that is destined to disappear. Approximately 8 % of individuals aged 30 years and above with a parent alive coreside with a parent, representing 1.8 million individuals. Overall, coresidence is associated more with men, individuals not in a couple, childlessness, unemployment or inactivity, crowded housing with poor amenities, and poor urban areas where the monthly income is below the average. Sharing a household can be considered as a family response to life course hazards. Three types of response can be identified. Adults living with their parents (38 %), who are more likely to be men with low resources, whereas women who have comfortable housing conditions are associated with living conditions where a parent is supported by an adult child (32 %). In the third group (30 %) the two generations are more likely to belong to higher social class sectors, although the available data cannot distinguish whether children accommodate their parents or parents accommodate their children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".