The Attitudes of French Psychologists to Same-sex Parenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the attitude of 275 French psychologists towards parenthood by same-sex couples and its connection with certain characteristics, drawn mostly from their professional practice. The analysis of data gathered by questionnaire has made it possible to describe this attitude in terms of three aspects: beliefs regarding the development of children in homoparental families; attitudes regarding the legalization of same-sex parenthood; and beliefs relative to the parenting skills of homosexual parents. Most of the participants are favorable to opening up adoption to homosexual couples, although fewer than half are favorable to allowing them access to artificial insemination with anonymous donors, and fewer than a quarter of them favor gestation by a third party (surrogacy). For the three dimensions explored, the participants present a generally positive attitude, particularly in the area of parenting skills. Finally, the participants’ attitudes revealed only a slight connection with their having had professional experience with homoparental families and with recourse to psychoanalysis in the framework of their practice. The publication of the research results on homoparental families, the diversification and the progressive nuancing of the viewpoints of these specialists about the issues involved, have influenced psychologists as a specialized, professional group in an elective way and have helped destigmatize homoparental families. They no longer appear to be marginal families suspected of being dangerous. Finally, it is not so much, or it is no longer a question of difference of the sexes which seems to be the central point of debate for psychologists, but that of filiation and its truth from a biological point of view.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".