GUEST EDITORS’ NOTE AND INTRODUCTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current aging of the global population is unrivaled in human history. According to United Nations projections, by 2050 the number of people over the age of 60 will have increased from its current level of 600 million to over two billion-more than doubling the percentage of the world's population over 60 from 10 to 22 percent (United Nations Secretariat, 2008). Not only is the number of elders increasing but the fastest growing segments of the elder population are persons aged 80 or older. These oldest old will account for 20 percent of the elder population by 2050.There is little agreement regarding how global aging will impact social institutions and economies. Some researchers and commentators wow that increased numbers of elders will result in increased demands on health and social welfare systems, dependency ratios and income transfers from working age to elder populations, resulting in overwhelming tax burdens on younger generations (e.g., Kotlinkoff & Scott, 2004). Other analyses dismiss such doom and gloom scenarios (e.g., Schulz & Binstock, 2008) and argue that the elders of the future will be healthier, more productive, and less of a social burden than previous generations.There is, however, general agreement that the increased elder population will impact interfamily relationships (Caro, 2006; Administration on Aging, 2008). This is not surprising as even in the wealthiest of nations, families often provide the majority of care and serve as a primary source of support for the elder population. In May 2008.65 members of the Committee on Family Research (RC06) of the International Sociological Association gathered at Lasell College in Newton Massachusetts to discuss how aging is impacting families and households in a global context. The 10 papers included in this special issue of the Journal of Comparative Family Studies resulted from presentations and discussions from the Lasell College meeting.The 10 papers in this issue reflect a range of analytic methods and cover a range of topics of growing importance for families and the field of family studies. Seven papers focus on family relationships and possible motivations among family members to provide elder care, one paper focuses on professional care providers and the need for culturally competent care services, another focuses on violence against aged persons, while one focuses more broadly on the construct of generation. We've ordered the papers to start with Susan McDaniel's discussion of the social construct of generation as it not only provides an instructive overview of the concept but her suggestion that (G)eneration as a relational, familial concept, opens policy to exploring who does what in relation to whom, and for whom, provides a stage for the papers that follow.The next six papers consider social contexts and interpersonal relationships and their effects on family caregiving to elder relations. Immediately following the McDaniel's paper is a comparison of kinship relations in Germany, Russia, and the People's Republic of China by Bernhard Nauck. Nauck's theoretical model integrates the institutional approach of cultural anthropology and the interactionist approach of family sociology and social gerontology to test the dimensions of structural, emotional, and functional solidarity of kin relationships. His analysis suggests not only the importance of combining macro and micro perspectives but also provides a useful framework for subsequent family relationship research.Following Nauck, Chin-chun Yi and Ju-ping Lin examine type5 of relationships between adult children and elderly parents in Taiwan and whether declining intergenerational coresidence will diminish the traditional filial norm of caring for one's parents. Daniela Klaus analyzes the relative explanatory power of attachment and obligation to one's parent, altruism, and reciprocity as reasons why adult children support their parents using a German sample. …
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 | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.061 |
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".