MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616499176 · doi:10.1111/jomf.12407

When the Kids Live at Home: Coresidence, Parental Assets, and Economic Insecurity

2017· article· en· W2616499176 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Maroto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marriage and the Family · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational Longitudinal SurveysDemographic economicsAsset (computer security)CohortHealth and Retirement StudySurvey of Income and Program ParticipationPsychologyDemographyEconomicsMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study uses National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort data from 1994 through 2012 ( N = 16,108 person‐years, 4,671 individuals) to investigate how coresidence with adult children influences asset levels among parents. It applies hybrid mixed effects regression models that partition between‐ and within‐person variation to estimate parental savings and financial assets over time and across different households. The results suggest that coresidence with adult children led to decreases in parental assets and savings. In the years in which their children lived at home, parents held 24% less in financial assets and 23% less in savings when compared with the years when adult children were not present. By expanding previous research that shows a relationship between increasing economic insecurity, limited wealth, and the rise in coresidence among young adults, this study also offers broader implications for the interconnectivity of financial hardship across 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations47
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marriage and the FamilySame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207