Residential proximity of adult siblings in Canada : an analysis using the longitudinal administrative database (2000-2020)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Research on family geographic proximity among adults has primarily focused on intergenerational distances, with limited attention given to the factors influencing intragenerational proximity, particularly among siblings. OBJECTIVES This study examines (1) the associations between having at least one sibling nearby and various characteristics of adults at age 35, and (2) how sibling proximity is related to characteristics within sibling dyads. METHODS Using data from the Longitudinal Administrative Database (2000–2020), we apply multinomial logistic regression models to assess individual, dyad, and family-level determinants of sibling proximity. Descriptive statistics further illustrate these patterns. RESULTS Analyzing data on 78,604 Canadian sibling pairs born between 1965–1985, with a median residential distance of approximately 26 km, we find that brothers are more likely to live close to each other compared to sisters. Lower-income individuals, as well as those who are single or separated, are more likely to reside near siblings than those in relationships. This study contributes to the understanding of sibling geography, highlighting the potential role of siblings as active participants in the support networks of older adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".