MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599117923 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.41.3.455

Profiles of Grandmothers Providing Child Care to Their Grandchildren in South Korea

2010· article· en· W2599117923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaerim Lee, Jean W. Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinomial logistic regressionPsychologyChild careSample (material)GrandparentDemographyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSociologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to describe the profiles of South Korean grandmothers who provide child care to their grandchildren using a nationally representative sample of 3,329 grandmothers between 45 and 79 years of age. We assess grandmothers’ personal characteristics, financial situation and perception, and social participation associated with the likelihood of providing full-time and part-time child care, in comparison to providing no child care. We also examine grandmother characteristics related to providing longer hours of child care among 420 caregiving grandmothers. The results of a multinomial logistic regression and multiple regression show that the following characteristics are significantly associated with the provision of full-time or longer child care: age, intergenerational coresidence, the projection of future inheritance, grandmaternal and maternal employment, interaction with close networks, and religious participation. The findings suggest preliminary support for the three models of intergenerational transfer theory, short-term exchange, long-term exchange, and altruism, to explain grandmatemal child care in South Korea.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations58
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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