Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concept of ambivalence is used extensively in the study of family ties and aging. Ambivalence connects contradictions at the micro‐ (mixed feelings, sentiments, and actions toward individuals and in relationships), meso‐ (social institutions), and macro‐ (structured social relations, social inequality) levels of analysis, focusing attention on the dynamics of negotiating ambivalence. Current conceptions of ambivalence, often referred to as structured ambivalence , highlight the reciprocal influences of individual agency, social institutional arrangements, and socially structured inequality as sources both of ambivalence and of pathways for redressing that ambivalence. Ambivalence in close relationships is associated with contradictory social arrangements in social institutions, such as work and family, in which the inequality of structured social relations based on age, class, gender, race, and ability are embedded. Applying the concept of ambivalence helps to relate meso‐ and macrolevel ideas of life‐course, feminist, and critical approaches to the negotiation of interpersonal relationships.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".