MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205672369 · doi:10.46692/9781529207965.002

From Scientific Motherhood to Intensive Mothering

2020· other· en· W4205672369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySociologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rich and complex history of childrearing practices most often coalesces around women's behaviour. Because women are imagined as best suited to perform the work of childrearing, maternal behaviour has long been the subject of state, public and academic scrutiny. Although the definitions and expectations of motherhood change with the times and advancements characteristic of a particular era, one consistency has been the construction of mothers as primarily responsible for preparing children as future citizens, ensuring that they grow up to be responsible, contributing members of society. This construction is particularly salient as transformations in the way we view childhood shift the way we understand childrearing (Faircloth, 2014a). Parenting is now a task, ‘a form of learned interaction’ that determines children's success or failure (Lee, 2014, p. 8). In this recent history of the emergence of parenting as a task, there are two key ideologies that help to contextualize the rise of AP. The first is scientific motherhood, the dominant framing for ‘good’ motherhood in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the UK and Canada, and the second is intensive mothering, the cultural contradictions of which define contemporary parenting culture. Scientific motherhood Scientific motherhood is ‘the idea that mothering should be guided by scientific supervision and principles’ (Litt, 2000, p. 21). Although the ideology first emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the notion that science is best suited to inform parenting has continued to define what we call ‘good’ motherhood, evident for example, in the current reliance on neuroscience to shape parenting (Lowe et al, 2015). The emergence of scientific motherhood coincided with the arrival of ‘scientism’ (Wilkie, 2003, p. 177) in European and North American societies, during which major scientific innovations such as the discovery of germ theory completely transformed the way everyday people, particularly mothers, lived their lives. This discovery, and scientism in general, enabled the emergence of preventative medicine and thus began the first indication of medical interest in the behaviour and habits of mothers. Physicians’ newfound interest in mothering behaviour reflected a larger cultural phenomenon that emerged alongside and as a result of scientism: medicalization. Medicalization is ‘the process through which medical interpretations have acquired cultural legitimacy’ (Litt, 2000, p. 4) to the exclusion of other explanations. This process is most clearly evident in the shifts in the customs of childbirth over the past 300 years (Stone, 2009).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.051
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207