Grandparents Upbringing in Mainland China: The Status and Prospect of Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper prospects the future study of grandparents upbringing by analyzing and summarizing briefly its nearly ten years' situation in recent mainland China in terms of its concepts and types, causes, pros and cons as well as relevant countermeasures. Key Words: Grandparents upbringing; Grandparent caregivers; Grandchildren; Pros and cons; Countermeasures GU Jihui, WU Dingchu (2012). Grandparents Upbringing in Mainland China: The Status and Prospect of Research. Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(3), 58-64. Available from URL: http://www. cscanada.net/index.php/ccc/article/view/j.ccc. 19236700201 20803. 1160 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020120803.1160. Ever since 1990s, there has always been a trend of accelerated growth of grandparents breeding families in mainland China. Take Shanghai for example, the ratio of grandparents raising grandchildren was 50%60% according to a survey done by the relevant departments during Children's Day Festival in 2004 (Anonymous, 2005). Whereas on July 17th 2007, the ratio of grandparents undertaking the upbringing of infants and small children has reached over 88.9% declared by the first forum hosted by Shanghai Municipal Welfare Fund etc. on Improving the Quality of the Population-the Socialization of the Only Child's Early Education (ZHU, 2007). Therefore, grandparents upbringing has become a pattern for the mainland families in China to breed their young. As shown by the CNKI database, Li Bin is the first one who has ever engaged in the study of grandparents upbringing (LI, 1995). There are no more than 10 documents on such topics from January, 1996 to December, 2000. However, while searching all through from year 2001 to 2011 by such key words as 'grandparents upbringing', 'grandparents breeding', 'grandparents nursling' in the CNKI database, we found that number has already reached well over 345 exclusive of the another 89 documents obtained by the same methods in Wanfang Data. Yearly distribution of like literature through quantified analysis is shown respectively by the following Chart 1 and Diagram 1 respectively. As shown by the above, the number in 2004 increased rapidly and since then the annual number of literature published has gone up and down with 2010 as the year having most number of literature covering 13.36% of the total. The existing studies involve mainly topics in terms of the concepts, causes, types, advantages and disadvantages as well as countermeasures etc., most of which are researches into the advantages and disadvantages. And furthermore a lot has been described about the mutual influence done on both the grandparent caregivers and their grandchildren while less has been done in the thorough study of the influence on the part of the grandchildren separately and only in the recent two years the study of how the grandparent caregivers are affected has been noted (Shown by Chart 2). I. THE PRESENT STATUS OF RESEARCH 1. THE DEFINITIONS AND TYPES OF GRANDPARENTS UPBRINGING 1.1 The Definitions As LI (2001) put out in 2001 that grandparents upbringing is a family education pattern by which grandparents take up the responsibility in nursling and educating their grandchildren (LI, 2001). LUO and SHE (2004) held that grandparents upbringing is grandparents as surrogate parents to their grandchildren (LUO & SHE, 2004). LI (2006) pointed out that compared with parenthood education, grandparents upbringing suggests an education mode in which the very parents of the children hand over their responsibility and obligation of nursling and educating the young to their parents (LI, 2006). GU (2010) considered grandparents upbringing means a lot more than grandparents nursling owing dual meaning of both the education and breeding, which indicate that grandparent caregivers will provide their grandchildren with guaranteed materials and information for the latter development (GU, 2010). …
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".