Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A number of recent Québec policy initiatives in such areas as vocational integration, school attendance, social services and family support services have targeted young mothers under the age of 20. The circumstances of those young women contrast sharply with those of older women, who are opting to start a family later or even forego children altogether. Indeed, the low fertility rate among Québec women stirs regular debates. Why then, does early parenthood pose a problem in need of special attention? This is the question that this chapter seeks to address. It provides a discussion of early pregnancy and motherhood as a ‘social problem’ through an exploration of the literature and of the latest statistics. The analysis will be set in the broader framework of changing social policies in Canada and Québec. It will be shown that early motherhood cuts across a set of specific issues and circumstantial factors, creating a novel situation that largely accounts for the interest it creates. Teenage pregnancy and motherhood: a social problem? Does becoming pregnant in adolescence and keeping the child represent a problem? The literature on teenage pregnancy and motherhood published year after year yields no simple answer to this question. Three lines of argument fuel the debates over teenage pregnancy and motherhood in Québec. First, there is the two-pronged debate between those who interpret the statistics as a cause for concern on the ground that the situation shows no signs of significant subsiding over time and those who emphasise other survey findings that reveal a set of problem behaviours associated with this phenomenon. Second, questions arise as to causality and consequences, that is, are these events the cause of subsequent problems or simply occurrences along a predetermined walk of life? Third, there are attempts to allocate rights and responsibilities, particularly those that fall to the adolescent female and society. This discussion is part of the broader process of redefining family and work values in Canadian and Québec society, which is reflected in the evolution of social policy. Alarming statistics The Canadian province of Québec has a total population of 7.5 million inhabitants. In 2001, close to 9,400 females under the age of 20 became pregnant, with the older age group (18-19) accounting for most of those pregnancies (ISQ, 2003).
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".