Stepgrandparents and Stepgrandchildren: A Scoping Review of What We Know About Their Relationships in Western Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family structures in Western societies have become complex and diverse over the past six decades, shaped by evolving sociocultural norms and changing marital trends. While divorce rates have declined since 2000, they remain higher than in the 1960s. This history of marital instability has resulted in a rise in stepfamilies, highlighting the importance of understanding intergenerational dynamics within stepfamilies. This scoping review aims to synthesize scientific data regarding the intergenerational relationships between stepgrandparents and stepgrandchildren within stepfamilies in Western countries. To this end, a comprehensive scoping review was conducted following the methodology established by the Johanna Briggs Institute. Results indicate that grandchildren generally feel closer to their biological grandparents than to their stepgrandparents. The relationship quality between stepgrandparents and stepgrandchildren is influenced by factors as age, gender, and family history of both stepgrandparents and stepgranchildren. Future research should examine how cultural, socio-economic, and intersectional factors influence stepgrandparental roles.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".