Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To explore the long‐distance mothering strategies of migrant women living in urban slums in Nairobi, Kenya. Background Throughout sub‐Saharan Africa, migration has had a profound influence on family life. As women's migration increases, particularly to urban slums, mothers may choose to live apart from children, fostering them to kin. Though fostering is common in many African countries, the unique characteristics of separation due to maternal migration may result in development of long‐distance mothering strategies to maintain mother–child relationships over time and space. Method Forty‐seven in‐depth interviews with mothers living in two Nairobi slums were analyzed to explore key strategies women use to maintain relationships with children who live elsewhere, examining the importance women place on sustaining relationships through financial and emotional support, and whether long‐distance mothering is sufficient. Results Efforts to maintain mother–child relationships over time and space are integral to many migrant women's understanding of themselves as mothers. Commitments to provide financially, as well as frequent communication and visits to ensure emotional well‐being of children, are described as key strategies to sustain relationships, whether separations are short term or permanent. For many mothers, however, these long‐distance efforts are viewed as insufficient forms of mothering, even in a context where child fostering is relatively normalized. Conclusion These long‐distance strategies may reflect a more nuanced approach to fostering or greater flexibility in fostering arrangements when mothers migrate, where frequent contact and financial support play an important role in maintaining mother–child relationships rather than shifting emotional and financial care to foster parents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".