The Intergenerational Consequences of Mass Incarceration: Implications for Children's Contact with Grandparents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the rapid growth in mass incarceration, a burgeoning literature documents the mostly deleterious consequences of mass incarceration for individuals and families. But mass incarceration, which has profoundly altered the American kinship system, may also have implications for relationships that span across generations. In this paper, I use data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study to examine how paternal incarceration has altered one important aspect of intergenerational relationships, children's contact with grandparents. Results from both ordinary least squares (OLS) and fixed-effects regression models show that incarceration decreases the frequency of children?s contact with paternal, but not maternal, grandparents. More than one-quarter of this negative relationship is explained by separation between parents that occurs after paternal incarceration, highlighting the kinkeeping role of mothers. Additionally, consequences are concentrated among children living with both parents prior to paternal incarceration and among children of previously incarcerated fathers. Taken together, results provide some of the first evidence that the collateral consequences of incarceration may extend to intergenerational 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".