MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605256245 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.36.4.521

Medically Assisted Conception: Revolutionizing Family or Perpetuating a Nuclear and Gendered Model?

2005· article· en· W2605256245 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maureen Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinshipNuclear familySociologyReproductive technologyFertilityGender studiesPatriarchyQualitative researchPsychologySocial psychologyPopulationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New reproductive technologies have the potential to radicalize family life, as they could blur kinship lines, separate biological and social parenthood, and encourage couples to create ‘designer babies’. On the other hand, these technologies could help more married couples create socially-acceptable nuclear families and reduce unwanted childless marriages. This article uses the ‘stories’ from qualitative interviews with couples seeking fertility treatments in New Zealand to interrogate motives for treatment, gendered experiences with procedures, and views about the future of marriage without children. The interviews show that, despite the potential of medically assisted conception, these participants use reproductive technologies as a vehicle to normality and social acceptance. The results of this study, combined with overseas research, suggest that medically assisted conception could reinforce pronatalism and patriarchal families rather than lead to a future revolution in family life.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207