The Rise and Prominence of Skip‐Generation Households in Lower‐ and Middle‐Income Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Investigations into changes in household formations across lower‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) rarely consider skip‐generation households. Yet, demographic, social, and economic forces increasingly encourage skip‐generation household formations. We examine trends and changes in the prevalence of skip‐generation households from 1990 to 2016, examining households, adults aged 60+, and children under 15, across 49 countries using household roster data from Demographic and Health Surveys. Analysis takes place in stages, first describing trends in skip‐generation households across countries and next providing explanatory analyses using multilevel modeling to assess whether, and the degree to which, country‐level characteristics like AIDS mortality and female labor force participation explain trends in the probability that a household is, or that an individual resides in, a skip‐generation household. Results indicate extensive increases in skip‐generation households in many LMICs, although there is also variation. The increases and variations are not well‐explained by the country‐level characteristics in our models, suggesting other underlying reasons for the rise and prominence of skip‐generation households across LMICs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".