Geographic Proximity Between Adult Children and Their Parents in Canada: The Role of Childhood Parental Income
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Adult children's geographic distance from their ageing parents has important implications for understanding intergenerational family spatiality, caregiving, and labour mobility. Though many studies delve into the determinants of intergenerational residential proximity, few analyse household characteristics from childhood – including parental income during childhood. Using administrative tax data from the Canadian Intergenerational Income Database, this study tracks a cohort of individuals initially observed as teenagers co‐residing with their parents in the mid‐1980s and the geographic distance between children and parents from 1997 to 2019 when adult children moved through middle age and their parents through old age. Findings show that the geographic distance between adult children and their parents remains positively and significantly associated with the household parental income of adult children when they were teens, and accounting for other socioeconomic characteristics and adult children's own family income in adulthood. These results underscore the effects of characteristics dating back to childhood and their potential implications for intergenerational informal care provision and family ties. Lesser geographic distance between adult children and ageing parents is also correlated with parents' ages and the presence of grandchildren, which align with expectations regarding care needs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".