Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To synthesize qualitative studies on the phenomenon of adolescent motherhood. METHODS: Databases were searched for qualitative studies regarding the experience of adolescent motherhood (years 1990-2001). Noblit and Hare's (1988) meta-ethnographic comparative method was used for synthesizing the research. A total of 251 citations were found, with a subgroup of 50 studies on "adolescent motherhood" and "qualitative studies." Twenty-five studies conducted in the United States, Canada, China, England, and Australia met the sample inclusion criteria. The combined sample of participants across studies was 257 adolescent mothers. RESULTS: Certain characteristics are common to the studies of adolescent motherhood. Five overarching metaphors were found: (1) the reality of motherhood brings hardship; (2) living in the two worlds of adolescence and motherhood; (3) motherhood as positively transforming; (4) baby as stabilizing influence; and (5) supportive context as turning point for the future. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nurses working in hospital, home care, community, and school settings can use the results of this metasynthesis to obtain a clearer picture of how adolescents feel during pregnancy, and the types of nursing interventions that can be developed to help them.
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 | 0.021 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".