MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731851916

Fathers and Stepfathers in Blended Families: Contexts and Vulnerabilities, Needs and Available Services in Quebec

2013· article· en· W2731851916 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claudine Parent, Marie‐Christine Saint‐Jacques, Marie-Hélène Labonté, Diane Dubeau

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue A Journal of Mormon Thought · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Perspective (graphical)Scope (computer science)SociologyQualitative researchPsychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial scienceComputer securityComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals confront challenges and issues relating to the economic, relational, personal and cultural contexts of vulnerability in which they live out their lives. The present qualitative study examines the nature of the contexts of vulnerability specific to fathers and step-fathers living in blended families and fathers whose ex-partner has reconstituted a family. From the perspective of agents working with such fathers and step-fathers, the study also addressed the needs of such men with respect to the services that are available to them in Quebec. The results allowed a dynamic model of the various contexts of vulnerability to which the fathers and step-fathers are exposed, when there is reconstitution of the family, to be developed. Further to this, certain failings in the services offered them are also discussed within the scope of the article.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogue A Journal of Mormon ThoughtSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207