Intergenerational Coresidence in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan: Comparative Analyses Based on the East Asian Social Survey 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A high percentage of elderly parents who live with their adult children is one of the notable living arrangement patterns among senior citizens in East Asia. The present study investigated intergenerational coresidence in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan by using data from East Asian Social Survey 2006. With a sample of couples aged between 20 to 59 who are married, and those whose parents are alive, determinants of intergenerational coresidence were examined by logistic regression. The results revealed that while sharing similar patriarchal norms, intergenerational coresidence has been functioning somewhat differently depending on the socioeconomic condition of each society. In Taiwan, the association between traditional values and coresidence was relatively strong. In South Korea, external constraints may hinder coresidence although their preference and needs for coresidence were high. In Japan, untraditional coresidence that satisfies adult children’s needs was prevalent. In China, both traditional values and needs of parents and adult children were related to coresidence. Implication of differences among East Asian societies is briefly discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".