MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267964687 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.37.3.381

Living Together or Communicating at a Distance: Structural and Associational Solidarity Between Mid-life Parent and Adult Child in New Zealand

2006· article· en· W2267964687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Hillcoat‐Nallétamby, Sandra Baxendine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityDyadSociologyConstruct (python library)Ethnic groupResidenceSocial psychologyGender studiesDemographic economicsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyDemographyPolitical scienceEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article draws on the theoretical construct of micro-level intergenerational solidarity developed by Bengtson and others to establish the factors influencing the associative and structural dimensions of solidarity for the dyad of mid-life parent and young adult child. This dyadic relationship may be subject to the constraining effects of responsibilities associated with mid-life, and the increasingly complex process associated with youth transition to adulthood, suggesting the potential for weakened intergenerational bonds of co-residence and communication. Empirical analysis, using multivariate logistic regression techniques draws on data from a 1997 New Zealand sample survey examining intergenerational relations between individuals aged 40-54 and their children and ageing parents. Results indicate that marital status, gender, religion and ethnicity exert a particular influence on both dimensions of solidarity, and that the potentially constraining factors of household income, employment, family size and the presence of ageing parents do not appear to weaken them unduly. Results do suggest that both dimensions of solidarity are weakened by parental divorce and separation, but remain the strongest when children share a biological link with parents.

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 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207