The Effects of Co-Residence on the Subjective Well-Being of Older Chinese Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of co-residence on the parental subjective well-being among older Chinese parents. Our analysis included 2968 elderly parents. Parental subjective well-being was stratified into positive well-being (PWB) and negative well-being (NWB). Positive well-being was assessed through questions about life satisfaction, optimism, and happiness and NWB was measured by questions about fear, loneliness, and feelings of uselessness. We found co-residence with adult children resulted in a significant average increase in PWB by 0.17 points relative to those who did not cohabitate. In rural China, co-residence with adult children significantly increased PWB by 0.19 points, and co-residence with a son significantly increased parental PWB by 0.18 points. Negative well-being fell significantly by 0.63 points if co-residence was with an adult daughter. Our findings imply that support from adult children significantly improved parental PWB, especially for the elderly in rural China. Public policies that facilitate the strengthening of cohabitation may help improve the well-being for older Chinese residents. Our study makes two main contributions to the international literature: first, we strengthened the causal inferences regarding the effects of co-residence with adult children on parental well-being through the use of a longitudinal study design; and second, we introduced a difference-in-differences propensity score matching (PSM-DID) approach to address potential selection bias that has previously been ignored in the literature.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".