MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792765501 · doi:10.1080/13229400.2018.1426033

Reviewing pronatalism: a summary and critical analysis of prior research examining attitudes towards women without children

2018· article· en· W2792765501 on OpenAlex
Jessica McCutcheon

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject commissioningPsychologySociologyPublishingSocial psychologyData collectionSocial scienceDevelopmental psychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review article examines prior research on attitudes towards women without children. The progression of pronatalist values and theories within Western societies are delineated and a critical review of the research that examines attitudes towards women without children is presented. Empirical studies have consistently found that women without children are perceived more negatively than mothers. However, the existing research predominantly uses vignettes to assess attitudes, allowing for little variability in the type of questions that can be asked and the conclusions that can be drawn. Further, this research rarely adopts a theoretical approach to data collection or analysis. The methodological and theoretical limitations of this research will be discussed and avenues for future studies that can address these limitations will be outlined. Finally, the policy implications that novel research on pronatalist attitudes could have for non-mothers will be explored.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.208 · 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