Midlife mothers favor `being with' children over work and careers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of American women juggle careers and the demands of mothering. The experiences of midlife mothers on the issues of work and motherhood are important to explore because birth rates for older women continue to rise in the United States and in other countries including the U.K. and Canada. OBJECTIVE: To present a unique viewpoint on work and mothering from the perspectives and experiences of older first-time mothers. METHODS: A purposive sample of thirteen women aged 45-56 years old participated in two in-depth interviews. Findings emerged in the context of a larger hermeneutic phenomenological study that aimed to understand older first-time mothers' perceptions of health and mothering during the transition to menopause. RESULTS: A paradox emerged in which the realities of motherhood did not meet the women's expectations. They were surprised by the centrality of commitment they felt towards the child and voiced strong ideals about how to do mothering right that included making changes to work schedules to be more available to their children. CONCLUSION: Health care professionals should be aware of specific issues that exist for older first-time mothers including adjustments to work. This knowledge will inform the support, education and care provided for these 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".