MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607576096 · doi:10.1111/jomf.12404

Who Helps Single Mothers in Nairobi? The Role of Kin Support

2017· article· en· W2607576096 on OpenAlexaff
Shelley Clark, Sangeetha Madhavan, Cassandra Cotton, Donatien Béguy, Caroline W. Kabiru

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marriage and the Family · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentWellcome TrustStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation
KeywordsKinshipPovertySlumSingle mothersExtended familySocial supportEconomic growthPsychologySociologySocioeconomicsGeographySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyEconomicsDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single mothers often turn to their extended kin for financial assistance and to help with child care. Such support may be especially important in areas of high poverty and poor environmental conditions. Using novel kinship data, this paper assesses the extent of support given by over 3,000 relatives to 462 single mothers living in a slum area of Nairobi, Kenya. Contrary to stereotypes about families in sub-Saharan Africa, the active kin network of single mothers is relatively small and nearly a fifth of mothers do not receive any financial or child care assistance. Different types of kin offer different kinds of support according to culturally proscribed roles. However, support also depends heavily on kin's employment status, geographic proximity, and age. These findings offer a nuanced picture of how single women living in slum areas draw upon their kin network to cope with their daily demands as mothers.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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

Citations68
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marriage and the FamilySame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207