Is There a Trade-Off Between Caring for Children and Caring for Parents?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given current fertility trends of delayed age at first birth, along with increased life expectancy, more families will likely face parental care decisions while still handling childcare responsibilities. This paper explores whether families who are facing multiple demands for care of both offspring and parents are substituting one type of care for another. More specifically, it asks whether individuals who are engaged in childcare duties to young children are likely to provide lower levels of support to their parents when compared to individuals with older children. Regression models were estimated employing data from Old Age and Autonomy: The Role of Service Systems and Intergenerational Family Solidarity (OASIS), a nationally representative sample of urban population in four European countries (Norway, England, Spain, Germany) and Israel. Taking advantage of a unique dataset, we were able to address the potential trade-off between the younger and the older generations within the family by considering individual, familial and societal factors. Our results demonstrate that adult children are responsive to parental needs and are likely to allocate resources to them when help is needed. However, the existence of a young child aged three-years-old or younger was significantly associated with a lower level of parental support. This finding suggests that intensive childcare duties may indeed hinder adult children’s ability to provide parental care. Some country differences were noted with lowest levels of parental support in Norway. Policy makers should consider the development of intergenerational family policies to support families facing multigenerational demands for care.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".