Individual, failing: an analysis of film portrayals of the causes of young adult coresidence from 2010–2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although researchers have observed that film depictions of young adult coresiders (i.e. young adults who live with their parents) tend to be negative, no research has systematically analyzed or explored such portrayals. Adapting Qualitative Content Analysis, this study examined portrayals of Canadian and American young adult/parent coresidence in films released between 2010 and 2020, seeking to ascertain the explanations for coresidence, (i.e. how do films portray why young adults coreside). Analysis of 18 films yielded eight distinct forms of explanations for coresidence, with the two most common being those that rendered coresidence as occurring due to either a mental health challenge or the flawed personality of the coresider. Broadly, film portrayals depicted coresidence as symptomatic of an individualized failing of young adults. Interpreting these findings through the lens of psychocentrism, we argue that film constructions pathologize coresidence and responsiblize coresiders. Further, and in contrast to news media, film constructions ignore systemic or structural drivers of coresidence. This research is the first to examine film portrayals of coresidence in depth, highlights distinct depictions of young adults in film media, and draws attention to the discrepancies between documented reasons for coresiding and those portrayed in on-screen storytelling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".