“Overgrown Children” and Where to Find Them: Film Portrayals of Coresiding and Residentially Independent Siblings’ Developmental Maturity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though young adult coresidence (in which individuals aged 18–35 reside within the family home) is stigmatized in mass media, research has not explored how such depictions relate to understandings of development. We used qualitative content analysis to explore how contemporary Canadian and American films depicted coresiding young adults and their similarly aged, residentially independent siblings with respect to various markers of adulthood. We found that coresiding characters were largely portrayed as developmentally immature both socially (e.g., full-time work) and characterologically (e.g., relational competence). In contrast, residentially independent siblings were overwhelmingly cast as developmentally on time. We argue that these depictions and contrasts reinforce a stigmatized coresider trope, framing the traits and actions of coresiders in terms of atypical development and attributing this living arrangement to individual faults. Implications for social attitudes and the wellbeing of emerging adults are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".