MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912694866 · doi:10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501042

The role of information resources in young fathers' parenting experiences

2018· article· en· W2912694866 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline Mniszak, Heather O’Brien, Cathy Chabot, Jean Shoveller

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachContext (archaeology)Presentation (obstetrics)PopulationSituatedPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Young fathers are frequently stigmatized as absentee and uninvolved in parenting. Although recent research has highlighted the need to develop programs and services specifically for this population, little consideration has been given to the kind of information young fathers would like to obtain, or the barriers inherent in existing programs and information resources. This research, which is part of a longitudinal ethnographic study conducted at young parent and pregnancy outreach programs in two Canadian cities, examined the ways in which young fathers are excluded from parenting resources and services. In this paper, we used content analysis to analyse photographs of information resources at study sites, e.g., parenting books, pamphlets, and posters advertising local events and services. Findings showed that the presentation of information is gendered and targeted at young mothers, thus serving as a form of exclusion for young fathers. These results, situated in the context of (young) parents' information practices, show that intentions to support young fathers must address issues of representation and audience in the design and delivery of parenting information.

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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207