The Structure and Determinants of Intergenerational Support Exchange Flows in an Eastern European Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the provision, receipt, and bidirectionality of support exchanges are important for generational well-being, our understanding of them is lacking in Eastern Europe, a region undergoing swift population aging and social change. This study links intergenerational support exchanges to determinants in Romania, with a focus on proximity of adult children. Data are from the Romanian Aging and Migration Survey ( N = 1,398). Analyses involve two stages. First, latent class analysis (LCA) is conducted to develop an intergenerational support typology. The second uses the typology as a dependent variable in multivariate equations predicting exchange determinants. LCA analysis yielded six propensity classes. Physical distance strongly predicts class membership. Having coresident adult children increases the likelihood of bidirectional exchange. Having an international migrant adult child reduces the chances, even with coresident adult children present. International migrant children lead to a higher probability of being a nonexchanger or receiving monetary support. There is a need for continued consideration of bidirectional exchange models in rapidly developing contexts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".