FAMILY RESIDENCE AMONG ELDERS IN MEXICO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on informal instrumental help received by a nationally-representative sample of elderly Mexican men age 60 and over gathered in 1994. About half the men received in-kind or domestic assistance in the last month, while about two-fifths received financial assistance, and a little more than a quarter received physical assistance. These figures must be interpreted alongside the facts that almost half of the men were still working, over half (57%) had no discernable health limitation and roughly a quarter were still living in simple family households with one or more unmarried children. The common assumption that living arrangements helps indicate assistance seems valid. When receipt of help was regressed on living arrangements and a number of other socioeconomic characteristics, living arrangements stayed an important predictor. Other factors stayed important too however. This suggests that help is a multidimensional concept that includes, but is not limited to coresidence. Coresidence is neither a sufficient nor even a necessary condition. In fact, many elders who received help, received some of that help from non-coresiding relatives. Remittances were important, but we found that help from non-coresiding relatives or
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".