A Qualitative Exploration of the Needs of (Pre)Parenting: Women Parenting with Women in Southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years research has examined various aspects of Women Parenting with Women (WPW) and their families. The focus of the research on these families has to an extent, been influenced by the social and political debates throughout the years that saw these families struggle through one challenge to the next. Through these challenges, research has examined the claims and accusations for and against these families, generating information on the mental health and suitability of same-sex parents, the well-being of their children, and how these families function without a nuclear family structure. As the social and political climate continues to warm (in some countries) to these individuals and families, research has yet to shift its focus to what these families need in order to flourish and succeed in their goals of achieving well-being in their everyday lives. In light of this gap in the literature, the current research examined WPW in Southern Ontario, Canada, who were planning on becoming parents or who were parents of children. A qualitative exploration often interviews (five pre-parents and five parents) revealed that these women had a number of needs that if met, would have greatly assisted them in their efforts to reach their family goals. A number of needs were presented, ranging from accessible, accurate information, to having more social outlets (both formal and informal) available for women to interact with other women undergoing similar experiences. Findings from this study are useful to service providers and regions that would be interested in providing inclusive, comprehensive services for women parenting with women.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".