Structural and Associational Solidarity Between Adult Children and Older Parents: Impact on Older Parents' Cognitive Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether structural (coresidence, proximity) and associational (frequency of face-to-face contact, frequency of contact via phone, email or letter) solidarity between adult children and older parents may influence older parents' cognitive functioning. Adult children may help delay older parents' cognitive decline by promoting healthier lifestyle, engaging parents in complex everyday problem solving, and providing emotional support. The data consisted of men and women 65+ at Wave 1 who had at least one child 20+ and participated in at least two waves of the Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing (KLoSA, N=3,961). Cognitive functioning was measured with the Korean version of the Mini Mental State Examination. Fixed effects models were estimated using the xtreg procedure in STATA. Findings suggest that increases in proximity with at least one adult child may lead to enhanced cognitive functioning among older parents. Neither transitioning to coresidence with at least one adult child nor increases in frequency of contact with at least one non-resident adult child was associated with changes in older parents' cognitive functioning. With older parents' increasing preference for living close by, but not necessarily living with adult children, greater proximity may provide more opportunities for reciprocal support exchanges between the two generations, leading to better cognitive functioning of older 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".