Educational Attainment Differences in Attitudes toward Provisions of IADL Care for Older Adults in the U.S.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational attainment is increasingly associated with family inequality in the U.S., but there is little understanding about whether and how education stratifies attitudes toward eldercare. Using the General Social Survey 2012 Eldercare Module, I test the association between educational attainment and attitudes toward eldercare provisions of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) including different combinations of help and payment for help. IADLs are the most common care received by older adults and needs are projected to grow, so understanding attitudes toward this type of care is timely and relevant. Results show that adults with a bachelor’s degree or graduate/professional degree, compared to adults with less than a high school degree, are more likely to support complete family IADL eldercare, where families provide the care and any payment necessary for care, compared to complete outside IADL eldercare, where outside institutions provide both care and payment. Educational attainment is an important axis of stratification in the U.S. and may explain potentially bifurcated policy solutions desired among different groups.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".