Intergenerational Solidarity and Ambivalence: Types of Relationships in German Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For at least two decades the research regarding generations in family sociology has been dominated by the multidimensional concept of intergenerational solidarity. Recently, the concept of intergenerational ambivalence, emphasizing the simultaneity of positive and negative aspects in family relations, has become a popular counterpart to the solidarity model. The aim of this paper is to integrate empirically both positive and negative aspects in families. Thus, firstly, four types of intergenerational relations (amicable, civil, ambivalent, and disharmonious) are generated by cross-classifying both scales on intimacy (positive) and conflict (negative) in the family. Secondly, differences in the four types of relations regarding the dimensions of intergenerational solidarity are empirically investigated. The analysis is based on the German data taken from the cross-cultural study “Value of Children and Intergenerational Relations” (VOC) which was carried out in 2002. A binary logistic regression analysis shows that the likelihood for the daughter-mother-relation to be ambivalent increases if daughters receive financial, instrumental, and emotional support from their mothers (functional solidarity). For the daughter-father-dyad, the likelihood to be ambivalent is slightly higher if the daughters indicate a higher agreement on familial norms (normative solidarity). Solidarity dimensions are better suited to explain the association with a certain type of relationship in the case of amicable, disharmonious, and civil relations (for both mother and father relations), where frequency of contact (associational solidarity) and emotional closeness (effectual solidarity) are also relevant.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".