MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132310639 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2015v40n1a2893

The In/Visibility of Mothering Against the Norm in Francophone Contexts: Private and Public Discourses in the Mediation of “Natural Parenting”

2015· article· en· W2132310639 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Florence Guignard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMediationFrenchNorm (philosophy)SociologyVariety (cybernetics)Public domainSocial psychologyGender studiesPolitical sciencePsychologySocial scienceHumanitiesGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mothers who engage in “natural parenting,” an unconventional style of parenting in Francophone contexts, use online media, and in particular online forums, as a source of information, as a place for discussing the variety of authentic maternal experiences, and as a virtual site of community building around shared practices, values, and worldviews. This contribution looks at the ways in which twenty-first-century online mediation participates in the blurring of private/public boundaries in the domain of parenting and how this affects parents who mother outside of the norm, following environmentalist worldviews. It also investigates the association of natural parenting and religion, and the articulations between public and private discourses about institutional motherhood and mothers’ experiences.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207