MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976855131 · doi:10.1177/0192513x19879189

Parents’ Expectations of Familial Elder Care under the Neoliberal Hong Kong Society

2019· article· en· W2976855131 on OpenAlexaff
Vivian W. Y. Leung, Ching Man Lam, Yan Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGeneral Research Fund of Shanghai Normal University
KeywordsCollectivismIndividualismCommodificationModernization theorySociologyElder careWelfareGender studiesPsychologyEconomic growthPolitical scienceGerontologyMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have examined the shifts in traditional familial values among Chinese populations. It was argued that the values have diminished or eroded due to Westernization and modernization. Instead of the collectivist-individualist divide, this study aims to understand the role of neoliberal discourse in Hong Kong Chinese parents’ beliefs in familial values and elder care. Using data from 120 in-depth individual interviews with parents of different generations, this study found four themes: (1) the notion of self-reliance; (2) the intertwinement of neoliberal ideas and filial values; (3) redefinition of filial behaviors; and (4) commodification of care. Results suggest that the changes in parents’ filial beliefs have shifted senior care responsibilities from families to individuals and the private market. It creates a disjuncture between care arrangement and governmental welfare; more comprehensive pension and senior care services are thus needed to respond to societal changes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207