Are filial eldercare norms related to intergenerational solidarity with older parents? A typological developmental approach.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergenerational solidarity is multidimensional in nature, but the role of filial eldecare norms in structuring intergenerational solidarity is less understood. We examine how filial eldercare norms expressed in early adulthood and midlife are associated with intergenerational solidarity with older parents and how this association varies across parent-child gender combinations. We used data from 1985 to 2005 waves of the Longitudinal Study of Generation when the generation of interest was 32 and 52 years of age, respectively. A three-step latent class approach, culminating with a multinomial logistic regression, was conducted on a sample of 198 mother-son, 279 mother-daughter, 155 father-son, and 209 father-daughter dyads. A tight-knit intergenerational type was uniquely identified in mother-daughter relations, and a social unsupportive type was uniquely identified in father-son and father-daughter relations. Daughters expressing stronger filial norms in early adulthood were more likely in middle adulthood to belong to a tight-knit relational type with mothers and a social unsupportive and intimate but distant relational type with fathers, compared to a detached relational type; these effects were mediated by contemporaneously measured filial norms. Our study complements previous studies on the relationship between filial eldercare norms and intergenerational solidarity with older parents by showing that these norms exert an influence by virtue of being stable in adult daughters over 20 years into middle age. These findings demonstrate that eldercare norms expressed by daughters prior to their parents' transition to old age structure intergenerational relationships in later life, suggesting that such norms are better considered as long-term endowments than as situational in their origins. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".