When time runs out: reconciling permanent childlessness after delayed childbearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the experience of permanent childlessness after delayed childbearing. BACKGROUND: More women are delaying childbearing while they pursue a career, gain financial stability and seek an appropriate partner. However, given that fertility declines with age, there is concern that more women will end up permanently, unintentionally childless after postponing childbearing. There is little known about this growing and invisible group. METHODS: An interpretive phenomenological analysis was used to conduct the study. A purposive sample of 15 women who identified as being permanently childless after delaying childbearing participated in the study. Data were collected using in-depth semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Themes included feelings of grief, loss and isolation; a need to make sense of their childlessness; and a need to rebuild and refocus their lives and identities regardless of whether they had actually tried to conceive during their childbearing years. Women struggled with feelings of regret and the need to reconcile the reality of their choice to delay childbearing based on their values and beliefs about the ideal conditions within which to raise a child with feelings of powerlessness to pursue motherhood when they were likely still fertile. CONCLUSION: Women who are permanently childless after delaying childbearing experience similar feelings to those who are childless after infertility and failed fertility treatments regardless of whether they tried to conceive during their reproductive years. However, this group has unique needs based on their feelings of regret, powerlessness and responsibility for their childlessness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".