MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396801600 · doi:10.3390/genealogy8020056

An Autoethnography on Intergenerational Relationships and Transnational Care for Older Parents

2024· article· en· W4396801600 on OpenAlexaff
William Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenealogy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoethnographySociologyOlder peoplePsychologyGender studiesGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I employ autoethnography to undertake a broader scholarly inquiry on intergenerational relationships and transnational care shaped by global migration and aging. Specifically, I reflect on the dynamics of my relationship with my mother, beginning with my departure from my home and spanning a period of 40 years, 8 in China and 34 outside China. In doing so, I contemplate theoretical models of intergenerational solidarity, ambivalence, and role ambiguity. I also challenge cultural assumptions of filial piety. The geographical distance, passage of time, and acculturation process have profoundly influenced my perception of filial piety, which differs markedly from my mother’s. However, this divergence in consensual solidarity—marked by variations in attitudes, beliefs, and values—does not translate into weakened affectual solidarity, characterized by positive sentiments and emotions. Furthermore, aided by advancements in transportation and social media technology, I have been able to extend crucial emotional and some “instrumental” care to my mother, along with financial support if needed, despite limited hands-on care. Nevertheless, I must negotiate my care for my mother and navigate a delicate balance in coordinating my care efforts with those of my non-migrant siblings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenealogySame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207