MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412083992 · doi:10.1080/03601277.2025.2528682

What do Instagram photos tell about grandfathers’ involvement in intergenerational family relationships? A manifest content analysis (MCA)

2025· article· en· W4412083992 on OpenAlexaff
Allan B. de Guzman, John Christopher B. Mesana, Jonas Airon M. Roman, R Hernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Gerontology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyContent analysisGerontologySociologySocial scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have increasingly underscored the pivotal role that grandparents occupy within family dynamics, leading researchers dedicated to the study of grandparenthood to investigate their contributions across diverse dimensions of familial life. However, a significant portion of this scholarship disproportionately emphasizes the experiences and influence of grandmothers, often neglecting the equally critical perspectives offered by grandfathers. Guided by the idea that photos may provide substantive insight on grandfatherhood, this exploratory study seeks to deepen the understanding of grandfathers’ roles in intergenerational families by employing manifest content analysis (MCA) of user-generated Instagram content from 2019. The analyzed data consisted of four hundred sixty-one (N = 461) images identified by the hashtag #grandfather. The focus of the analysis was on the discernible features and characteristics depicted in these photographs. Results revealed that grandfathers predominantly appeared at typical family gathering/bonding photos (34.62%). Notably, geographic representation indicates that images originate from Europe (39.23%), with a peak in photo uploads in June (21.88%). The study concludes with practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational GerontologySame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207