MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122863205 · doi:10.1136/ebn.9.4.124

Mothering served as a narrative backbone that supported a meaningful, well developed life in some teenage mothers

2006· letter· en· W2122863205 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy E. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SmithBattle L. Teenage mothers at age 30. West J Nurs Res 2005;27:831–50.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q How do mothers who gave birth when they were <19 years of age describe and interpret their life experiences 12 years later? Longitudinal qualitative study using interpretive phenomenology. A large metropolitan area on the west coast of the US. From an initial sample of 16 families, the sample followed up at 12 years consisted of 11 families (9 mothers, 3 partners of mothers, 9 maternal grandparents, and 6 of the mothers’ firstborn children). Mothers were 27–31 years of age. 10 mothers had given birth to additional children. 5 mothers were married, and 6 were single. 2 families were receiving public assistance. 1 mother lived in low income housing, and 3 mothers lived with their parents. Of the 7 remaining families, 4 owned their homes. Families were interviewed at 4 different time periods (approximately every 4 y). At the fourth follow up, the investigator interviewed each mother (and partner in 3 cases) about changes in her life since the last follow up and difficult and rewarding parenting situations. 1 month later, parents were asked to describe additional difficult and rewarding parenting situations. Parents and the index child were then asked to … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DWestern%2BJournal%2Bof%2BNursing%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DWest%2BJ%2BNurs%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DSmithBattle%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D27%26rft.issue%253D7%26rft.spage%253D831%26rft.epage%253D850%26rft.atitle%253DTeenage%2BMothers%2Bat%2BAge%2B30%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1177%252F0193945905278190%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16275703%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0193945905278190&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16275703&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F9%2F4%2F124.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000232598200005&link_type=ISI

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207