Alternative Life Paths Among Adolescent Mothers: A Case Study in the Montréal Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some authors see families resulting from a situation of adolescent pregnancy as more at risk of mistreating their children and more likely to endanger their children’s \npersonal and social development than the average family (Buchholz and Korn-Bursztyn, \n1993; Chase-Landsdale et al., 1991). Other authors emphasize the importance of protective factors, \nsuch as the existence of reliable support for parents and children in their social \nenvironment (Dubow and Luster, 1990; Unger and Cooley, 1992). Yet others underscore the \nfact that all adolescent pregnancies do not necessarily produce “problem” families \n(Brooks-Gunns and Furstenberg, 1986; Buchholz and Korn-Bursztyn, 1993). In fact, the \nunderlying question is not solely that of risk or vulnerability. More generally, it is a matter \nof seeing how families manage to get through their early years when they start off \nwithout the basic personal resources to support their new family.Examination of these issues has led to our investigation of the pursuit of various \nlife courses and life paths. Our study was based on some fairly simple questions: \n• Which adolescent mothers managed to “cope” after a period of time? \n• Which mothers still had major problems in their lives several years after the birth \nof their child? \n• What are the conditions that induce a mother to pursue one life path rather than \nanother? \nThis approach to the questions asked is essentially based on the idea that \nadolescent pregnancy represents a major disruption in a young woman’s life cycle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".