Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was once impossible anywhere in the world for single adults to adopt children, and this is still the case in many jurisdictions. Elsewhere, however, single adults are now being actively recruited primarily because they are more willing than are married couples to adopt older or disabled children or to adopt across racial or other barriers. This is true for single men as well as for single women, but single men seeking to adopt continue to be widely viewed with skepticism and are reportedly often judged to be inappropriate parents. This paper reviews the sparse fostering and adoption literature on single heterosexual males and addresses the evident ambivalence with which parenting by single men is held among both child and adult mental health professionals. The paper also discusses the parenting styles of mothers and fathers, the ways that the central nervous system in both sexes has been found to respond to parenthood, the similarity of outcomes between single male and single female parenting, and the availability in North America of support and training for foster and adoptive single parents. The paper concludes that, in general, single men have as much to offer an adopted child as do single women and that seeming discrimination against them by childcare agencies requires investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".