MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118606113 · doi:10.1177/1049732314521902

Laboring to Mother in the Context of Past Trauma

2014· article· en· W2118606113 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hélène Berman, Robín Masón, Jodi Hall, Susan Rodger, Catherine Classen, Marilyn K. Evans, Lori E. Ross, Gloria Alvernaz Mulcahy, Leonarda Carranza, Fatmeh Alzoubi

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsFanshawe CollegeUniversity of TorontoWomen's College HospitalCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGrounded theoryDialogicContext (archaeology)Thematic analysisNonprobability samplingInterpersonal communicationPsychologyQualitative researchSocial workDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicineSociologyPopulationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence of interpersonal trauma is a reality for many women, with effects that often persist long after the traumatic events end. The purpose of this feminist grounded theory study was to examine how past trauma shaped the lives of women as they became new mothers. We recruited a purposive sample of 32 women from two Canadian communities and conducted semistructured, dialogic interviews during the second trimester of pregnancy. We analyzed data using thematic content analytic methods, including open coding whereby we read transcripts line by line and applied codes to portions of text that illustrated concepts or themes. The substantive grounded theory, "laboring to mother in the context of past trauma," describes the exceedingly difficult emotional and cognitive work undertaken by pregnant women with histories of trauma as they anticipate becoming mothers. In this article, we present key components of the theory and offer recommendations for health and social service providers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.435
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207