MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2515340716 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20005923

Gender Stereotyping in Pretend Play among Children Adopted by Same-Sex Couples

2022· dataset· en· W2515340716 on OpenAlexaff
Elder Cerqueira-Santos, Justin Bourne

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate gender stereotyping during episodes of spontaneous pretend play among children adopted by gay male couples. Gender stereotyping in children's play has been reported in different contexts, regarding discussions on their biological, cultural and individual determination. This work is a naturalistic observational study that involved 13 children aged 3-7 years during 16 observation sessions in a Day care playroom. A total of 123 episodes were analyzed, which were categorized by group's formation (number of participants and gender); type and theme of the play; and use of objects. Significant differences were found for all criteria that characterize the play as gender-typed. These findings corroborate other studies among children raised by heterosexual couples. Boys had episodes in larger groups and themes that required more use of space, while girls played in smaller groups and used more toys.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicReproductive Health and Technologies→French-language works237,207→