Male voices in foster families – recognition of their place and consideration for their special nature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies focus on men in foster families. The cohorts considered in most research work are almost exclusively made up of women. However, various authors have stressed the importance of including fathers in interventions with children in foster care. From a psychodynamic perspective, the authors report the results of qualitative research (n = 10, 20 interviews) into the experience of Quebec foster parents. The article seeks to describe the issues specific to the experience of foster fathers. A thematic analysis (Paille & Mucchielli, 2012) was conducted on the interviews of the 5 men from the sample. The results show that participants retain a traditional view of the family and fatherhood informed by a collective spirit and altruism. They also envision a complementary role alongside their spouses, especially with respect to relations with the institution. Moreover, they do not take advantage of the opportunity to speak out in the same way as the women encountered. The results are discussed from the standpoint of reflection on the inclusion of men in placement studies and on the type of support to be afforded them.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".