Racial/ethnic variation in family support: African Americans, Black Caribbeans, and <scp>non‐Latino</scp> Whites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examined racial and ethnic differences in the receipt and provision of instrumental family support. Background: Extended families provide significant levels of emotional and instrumental support across the life course. Despite their importance, extended family relationships and the assistance they provide are largely neglected in the literature. Further, questions remain concerning cultural variation in family support relationships and inconsistent findings on racial differences in family support in prior investigations. Method: This study relied on data from the National Survey of American Life-Reinterview (n=3,483) to investigate the provision and receipt of instrumental support from extended family among African Americans, Black Caribbeans, and non-Latino Whites and within high- and low-income categories for each group. Eight key measures of instrumental family support are examined: receiving and providing transportation, help with chores, financial assistance, and help during an illness. Results: African Americans and Black Caribbeans share similar profiles of providing and receiving instrumental family support. Both populations receive and provide assistance more frequently than do non-Latino Whites. Similarly, analyses stratified by income indicated that for low-income and high-income groups, African American and Black Caribbeans are similar to one another, and at each income category, both groups received and provided support more frequently than non-Latino Whites. Conclusion: Study findings are discussed in relation to conceptual and methodological differences in assessing Black-White differences across studies of family support. Attention to these issues and the specific contexts for receiving/providing family support (emergency vs. routine; intergenerational vs. extended) will help clarify inconsistent findings across studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".