Rethinking Intergenerational Living as the Ideal Form of Senior Care: Life Course Research with Immigrant Families in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s care systems are ill-equipped to support its aging population, and this crisis intertwines with an acute shortage of affordable housing. Immigrants to Canada have a higher propensity to cohabitate multi-generationally, an arrangement that is sometimes romanticized as an ideal form of senior care. This article contributes to scholarship exploring intergenerational cohabitation as a practice of care, using life course research to consider how class and migration timing shape experiences of intergenerational living and senior care. Based on 19 in-depth interviews with immigrant seniors from Latin America and the Caribbean (n=10) and family caregivers (n=9) living in the Greater Toronto Area, this study uncovers two central findings. First, intergenerational living should not be viewed as an ideal form of senior care since (1a) some seniors resist intergenerational living, preferring independence and downtown residence nearer to culturally relevant communities and (1b) cohabitation does not always provide sufficient or better care. Second, access to smooth multigenerational cohabitation is inequitable, as housing arrangements are structured by class and migration timing, with middle-class families who have been in Canada longer facing fewer barriers to positive experiences of intergenerational living, compared to more recent migrants with lower incomes. This article challenges culturally essentializing assumptions about immigrant intergenerational cohabitation and argues that access to affordable housing is a senior care issue.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".