The meaning and lived experience of permanent childlessness as a result of infertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine infertile couples' subjective experience of permanent childlessness after they elected not to pursue other parenting options. This study involved the secondary analysis of data from a phenomenological study exploring the transition to biological childlessness for infertile couples (Daniluk et al., 1996). In that study, a qualitative phenomenological methodology was used to guide the data collection and analysis. Data were gathered through four unstructured, in-depth interviews over a period of three years with a volunteer sample of nine infertile couples from different regions in Canada. Participants were between the ages of 29 and 48 when the study began. All couples had ended infertility treatment and considered their childlessness to be permanent. To explore the lived experience of permanent childlessness after failed infertility treatment, the data were analyzed according to Colaizzi's (1978) method of phenomenological data analysis. Seven common themes emerged, which included the following experiences: (a) a need to protect themselves; (b) a sense of lessening emotional intensity; (c) a sense of regaining control; (d) a need to revision life and identity; (e) a sense of appreciation for the strength of their relationship; (f) a sense of recognition and reconciliation to their fate; (g) a need to make sense of their experience. These findings led to specific recommendations for future research, as well as implications for the counselling profession with respect to working with infertile couples.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".