MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926788313 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.31.3.347

Women without Children: A Contradiction in Terms?

2000· article· en· W2926788313 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Myra J. Hird, Kimberly Abshoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender studiesFeminismFemininitySociologyModernityIdeologyContext (archaeology)ContradictionFeminist theoryPostmodernismReproductionPoliticsPolitical scienceEpistemologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whilst the ideological construction of families has undergone significant change from pre-modernity to modernity, children remain an essential feature. This paper considers the relationship between families, feminist theory and voluntarily childless women. It is primarily concerned to explore women’s experiences as non-sexually reproductive within a cultural context that continues to emphasise femininity based on sexual reproduction, and families defined by the presence of children. In recent decades, remaining childless has emerged as a trend amongst Western women, understood within the broader context of changes in women’s political, economic and social status. The paper aims to argue that whilst second-wave feminism has championed these changes in women’s status, it nevertheless sustains a cultural definition of woman’ based on sexual reproduction. As such, feminist theory continues to regard childless women as dysfunctional. The paper concludes by exploring the effectiveness of recent challenges from postmodern feminism to subvert women’s association with sexual reproduction, and extend the notion of families to include individuals without children.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.043
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations96
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207