Stuck in the Nest? A Review of the Literature on Coresidence in Canada and the United States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it