Intergenerational Contact in European Transnational Families: The Case of Belgium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
European migrants are confronted to maintain relations with their families across borders and to meet the expectations of intergenerational care. This can be a challenge due to the geographical distance to their families as has been documented for non-western migrants across Europe. In this paper, we focus on European citizens living in Belgium. The focus on European migrants is especially interesting given the large and increasing share of them in European migrant populations, and the specific policy context of the European Union. We make use of the Belgian Generations and Gender Survey to examine the contact frequencies with the biological mother of different groups of first generation European migrants in Belgium and compare these to Belgian natives and non-European migrants. Additionally, we study face-to-face and telephone contact in a similar comparative way. Results indicate two important factors influencing contact frequency. First of all, geographical proximity is of importance for maintaining contact and especially for European migrants it determines the face-to-face contact frequency with their mothers in another European country. Secondly, the European mobility policy, characterized by the free movement of persons, strongly influences the differences in contact between EU and non-EU migrants.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".