Mothering served as a narrative backbone that supported a meaningful, well developed life in some teenage mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".