MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973646612 · doi:10.1177/1097184x19874869

“I Feel Like It’s a Little Bit of a Badge of Honor”: Fathers’ Leave-Taking and the Development of Caring Masculinities

2019· article· en· W2973646612 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judith Beglaubter

Bibliographic record

VenueMen and Masculinities · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityTransformative learningPsychologyLiminalityParental leaveHonorSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the consensus that fatherhood is undergoing significant change, there is little known about how men who are deeply engaged in caregiving experience the shift away from conventional models. Examining the use of parental leave by Canadian fathers offers the opportunity to study the day-to-day reality of men’s caregiving and how time with baby may be transformative. In-depth interviews with 33 men reveal that all participants developed parenting skills and emotional bonds, yet only fathers who parented without a mother’s oversight articulated a sense of ownership and accountability over their child’s care. Those personally moved by the leave experience were most likely to integrate caregiving into their identities, provided they felt ‘accomplished’ in their employment. Leave-taking thus represented an important liminal period in which fathers could ‘test the waters’ of hands-on childcare without threatening their sense of self, ultimately increasing the visibility of men as caregivers and reshaping cultural configurations of acceptable masculinity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMen and MasculinitiesSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207