MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026065448 · doi:10.1037/a0014973

Legal and social contexts and mental health among lesbian and heterosexual mothers.

2009· article· en· W2026065448 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Danielle N. Shapiro, Christopher Peterson, Abigail J. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianSexual orientationMental healthPsychologyContext (archaeology)ResidenceHomosexualityDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatrySociologyDemographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the role of legal and social context (the level of legal and social support offered by one's country of residence) and sexual orientation in the mental health of lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Participants were sampled from the United States and Canada because the two countries have many similarities (North American location, reliance on English language, and democratic structures) but provide different legal and social rights to their lesbian citizens. The study included 52 lesbian mothers and 153 heterosexual mothers in the United States and 35 lesbian mothers and 42 heterosexual mothers in Canada. Although there were no differences between heterosexual mothers as a function of legal and social context, lesbian mothers from the United States reported more family worries about legal status and discrimination (but not more general family worries) and more depressive symptoms than did lesbian mothers in Canada. Results indicate that legal and social context moderates the role of sexual orientation in maternal mental health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family PsychologySame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207