Taking A Stand: A Review of Nancy E. Dowd's In Defense of Single-Parent Families.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Defense of Single-Parent Families is yet another contribution to the growing body of knowledge on single-headed households.The number of lone-parent families may be on the rise, however, a remarkably con- sistent view of single-parent families as 'problem families' continues to dominate the literature.Researchers have, for the most part, painted a gloomy picture of single-parent families by focusing on the negative repercussions of such family structures.Poverty, family breakdown, juvenile delinquency, and crime are among some of the social malaise frequently attributed to lone-parent families.Moreover, given that the overwhelming majority of single parents are 'mothers', women have inevitably become the targets of blame for the emergence of such social ills.Consequently, in employing a major part of their efforts at discredit- ing single-parent families, researchers have scarcely acknowledged the value of single parenting.Nancy E. Dowd, an American law professor and single mother (by choice), has recognized the need for feminist research in this area and, as a result, has taken on the challenge of moving considerably beyond the commonplace assumption that single-parent families are dysfunctional because of inherent fatal flaws in their structure.As revealed by the title of her book, Dowd delivers a poignant defense of single-parent families by claiming that all families, regardless of their 'form', face significant conflicts vis-a-vis work and family responsibilities.As a matter of fact, the author ventures to say that many dual-parent families in reality oper- ate as single-parent care-giving households.In Defense of Single-Parent Volume 16, 2000
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".