Grandparents’ Role in Spanish Families’ Work/Life Balance Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, grandparental childcare has been instrumental to Spanish parents’ ability to engage in paid work. At the same time, the use of formal childcare services, paid domestic assistance and parental leave-taking have also intensified. The objectives of this study are: (1) to estimate the scope of the support received from grandparents in caring for children; and (2) to assess the impact of the diversification of childcare resources on highly frequent grandparental childcare in two-parent families. The sample covered the 2304 parents with at least one child under 13 interviewed on the occasion of the Survey on the Use of Parental Leave in Spain, 2012. Three types of factors were analysed: (1) use of external childcare resources; (2) time devoted by parents to childcare and paid work; and (3) control factors measuring grandparents’ availability, childcare needs and income. The findings suggested that international comparative studies based on the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) underestimate the scope of grandparental childcare. Two-parent families with higher incomes resorted less frequently to grandparental childcare. In addition, formal childcare services, paid domestic work and parental leaves are associated with less frequent grandparental involvement. Overall, the findings suggest that more diversified deployment of the available resources may contribute to reducing grandparental childcare.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".