There at Any Distance? Geographic Proximity and the Presence of Adult Children in Older People’s’ Confidant Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adult children are key members of their aging parents’ close social network, often providing emotional and advisory supports. Still, adult children are not a guaranteed presence in older people’s core discussion networks. Geographical distance is a leading explanation for why some children are excluded from the confidant network, but we hypothesize that certain parent- and dyadic-level factors make these intergenerational ties more resilient to distance. Using wave six of the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe, we identified whether a living adult child was also a member of the parent’s egocentric confidant network. We modeled the effect of the child (Level 1) and parent (Level 2) characteristics on the exclusion of a child from the core network using hierarchical logit models. We found that fifty-eight percent of children were excluded from a parent’s network. Parents were more likely to exclude those who lived more than 25 km compared to children who lived within 5 km. The impact of distance was exacerbated among parents who were older, partnered, or had four or more children. Parents with higher education and good computer skills were less sensitive to longer distances when listing a child as a confidant. Finally, parents who had confidants outside of the nuclear family and who lived in Northern Europe were less likely to exclude a child over 100 km from their confidant network. Together, results indicate that a number of demographic factors and personal and social resources contribute to the elasticity of parent-child ties across long distances.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".