MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009070742 · doi:10.1080/01494929.2020.1728005

Stuck in the Nest? A Review of the Literature on Coresidence in Canada and the United States

2020· review· en· W3009070742 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathrina Mazurik, Sarah Knudson, Yukiko Tanaka

Bibliographic record

VenueMarriage & Family Review · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An historically high proportion of Canadian and American young adults are living with their parents. This trend has stimulated research and theorization of “coresidence,” yet recent reviews of the subject are lacking. In this paper, we examine literature on coresiding families spanning the last 25 years, focusing discussion on their economic, cultural, gendered, familial, and psychological characteristics. We argue that theoretical understanding of this topic is expanding, that knowledge of this issue is improving in nuance, but that, despite these encouraging trends, researchers have neglected to examine the actual practices and consequences of coresidence. As a result, the field offers little guidance to parents, young adults, and family counselors. We recommend that researchers expand their methodological approaches, introducing more longitudinal and qualitative designs to capture the day-to-day practices of these families and the consequences of coresidence over time. In addition, we offer some guiding principles for practitioners working with young adults and their parents, based on our findings.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarriage & Family ReviewSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207