Saviours and satyrs: ambivalence in narrative meanings of sperm provision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the complex representations of sperm providers in the narratives of donors, recipients and offspring involved in donor-assisted conception. Eighty-seven volunteers from Australia, Canada, UK, USA and Argentina participated in qualitative narrative research. Sperm provision was perceived to be publicly represented as sexualized, provoking both disgust and hilarity; this is interpreted as arising from its association with masturbation and the metaphorical representation of the donor sperm as cuckolding the recipient's husband. Recipients' representations of providers were found to mix gratitude with resentment, embarrassment, and anxiety; their constructions are strongly influenced by the position of the social father. The complex representation of the provider as a genetic father is considered: providers can be seen as threatening the integrity of parents if they become involved in the life of their offspring and abandoning their offspring to confusion and despair if they do not. The research demonstrates that, in spite of its relative frequency and familiarity, donor insemination is still represented ambivalently, including by those who may be said to benefit from it.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".