Reinforcing the Motherhood Ideal: Public Perceptions of Biological Mothers Who Make an Adoption Plan*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, les auteures étudient l'idée que les gens se font des méres biologiques qui transmettent leurs droits parentaux à des parents adoptifs. Des différences selon les sexes ressortent de la description des méres biologiques qui élaborent un plan d'adoption et des explications de leurs raisons pour avoir choisi le placement dans un foyer adoptif. Lorsqu'une femme élève son enfant biologique, les conceptions sur l'im‐portance inhérente des liens du sang et des liens supérieurs mère‐enfant sont utilisées pour justifier cette disposition plutôt que l'adoption par un couple de gens mariés. Si elle choisit l'adoption, sa « bontè» essen‐tielle et son désintéressement en tant que mère sont mis en valeur. In this article, we explore public perceptions of biological mothers who transfer their parental rights to adoptive parents. Gender differences emerge in the description of biological mothers who make an adoption plan and in explanations of their motives for adoption placement. When a woman raises her biological child, notions of the inherent importance of the blood tie and superior mother‐child bonding are used to justify this arrangement over adoption by a married couple. If she selects adoption, her essential “goodness” and unselfishness as a mother are emphasized.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".