Sign here: Coresidence contracts for parents and young adults who live together
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To describe the content of parent and young adult coresidence contracts, attending to understandings of development and adulthood, processes of socialization, and conflict prevention and resolution. Background Little is known about overcoming the challenges of parent and young adult coresidence. Popular media encourages families to adopt written contracts to clarify expectations, prevent conflict, and cultivate positive experiences. However, their content, use, and effectiveness have not been empirically investigated. Method This work is a qualitative content analysis of a sample of young adult and parent coresidence contracts obtained from popular self‐help and parenting resources. Results Contract content emphasized the following: parent and young adult rights and responsibilities, timelines around the termination of coresidence and other responsibilities and developmental milestones, legal motifs, punishments and rewards, rationalizing commentary, and room for personalization. Overall, contracts focused on role‐specific rights and responsibilities and positioned young adults as subjects of socialization in hierarchical family systems. Conclusion Coresidence contracts scaffold young adult development according to traditional Western understandings of adulthood. Depending on family circumstances, they have the potential to benefit and harm parent–child relationships. Implications The asymmetrical nature of coresidence contacts raises questions about their ability to support mutual aims, intergenerational understanding, young adult independence, interpersonal trust, and healthy parent–young adult 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".