MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809210877 · doi:10.1080/1550428x.2018.1461583

Gender Socialization Practices Among Bisexual and Other Nonmonosexual Mothers: A Longitudinal Qualitative Examination

2018· article· en· W2809210877 on OpenAlexaff
Corey E. Flanders, Melissa Marie Legge, Iradele Plante, Abbie E. Goldberg, Lori E. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of GLBT Family Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsSocializationPsychologyLesbianTransgenderSexual identityNormativeDevelopmental psychologySexual minorityQualitative researchContext (archaeology)Sexual orientationSocial psychologyGender studiesHuman sexualitySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though social scientists have researched sexual minority parenting practices regarding the gender socialization of children, to date this research has focused exclusively on sexual minority parents in same-gender relationships, and almost exclusively on the experiences of gay and lesbian parents. The current paper addresses the gender socialization parenting practices of 25 nonmonosexual sexual minority women who are in different-gender relationships through analysis of qualitative in-depth interviews that took place over the course of one year. Our findings indicate that the experiences of these participants differ from both those reported in previous literature on sexual minority parents in same-gender relationships as well as heterosexual parents in different-gender relationships. Specifically, participants do not report sexual identity stigma as restricting the degree of cross-gender socialization in which they engage, nor do they report a gender normative influence from their male partners. Findings are discussed in the context of a socioecological framework.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GLBT Family StudiesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207