Bibliographic record
Abstract
The entry of young people into early parenthood has long been regarded as an issue for social policy and for professional practice in the UK and internationally. Despite a steadily falling trend, most notably since 1998, the UK still has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe, concentrated in the most socially disadvantaged areas of the country (Office for National Statistics, 2015). The majority of these pregnancies are unplanned, with about half resulting in the birth of a child, although the extent to which this should be a cause for concern is a contested issue (Duncan et al., 2010). Considerable research evidence exists on the experiences of young mothers, with a range of interventions designed to meet their needs. However, young fathers (defined as those under the age of 25, a quarter of whom are estimated to be in their teens) have, until recently, been neglected in both research and policy. Over the past decade, small pockets of research evidence on the circumstances, practices and values of young fathers have begun to coalesce into a fledgling evidence base. However, the notion of ‘feckless’ young men, who are assumed to be absent, or disinterested in ‘being there’, or, worse, regarded as a potential risk to their children, continues to hold sway, particularly in popular media and some political discourses (Neale and Davies, 2015).
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".