The role of motherhood schemas and life transitions in reproductive intention formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study provides a theory-based snapshot of the processes involved in women's fertility intention formation and decisions regarding the timing of motherhood. BACKGROUND: The trend to defer childbearing is linked with both empowering and challenging outcomes for women. The cognitive-social (C-S) model suggests that deliberative thinking regarding reproduction occurs following fertility-relevant life transitions, which results in fluctuations in motherhood schemas and fertility intentions. This framework was applied to explore fertility intention formation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve women who either had children or desired children. RESULTS: Two overarching themes central to the C-S model are discussed: (a) passive expectations and (b) deliberative intentions. Women's motherhood schemas were often underpinned by schematic structures (e.g. group norms and scripts) and material structures (e.g. observational influences). Life transitions and personal experiences tended to prompt deliberative thinking about motherhood plans. CONCLUSION: The results were generally consistent with the C-S model, but highlight complexities to consider when investigating fertility expectations and intentions.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".