Older Adults With Three Generations of Kin: Prevalence, Correlates, and Transfers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We document the prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of older adults with three generations of living kin and examine the patterns of transfers among this group compared with those with fewer generations of kin available. METHOD: We use the Health and Retirement Study (1998-2010) to estimate kin availability and intergenerational transfers among respondents in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. RESULTS: It is far more common for older adults to have aging parents, children, and grandchildren than to have just two generations of kin (parents and children). Forty percent of adults in their 50s, 30% of those in their 60s, and 7.5% of those in their 70s have three generations of kin available. Hispanics and the least educated are more likely to have this generational configuration. The vast majority provides financial or in-kind transfers to at least one generation, and a large minority provides support to both older and younger generations. DISCUSSION: Although there has been much concern about the strains among those sandwiched between parents and children, it is far more common among older adults to also have grandchildren, and many of these adults are transferring resources both upward and downward to multiple generations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".