Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine teenage pregnancy as a social problem using social constructionist perspective. Analyzing qualitative interviews with 11 young mothers and relying on the media analysis of popular North American newspapers and magazines, I examine claims-making activity around the definition of teenage pregnancy as a social problem. I start this paper, situating my arguments in the social constructionist literature on social problems. In the second part of this paper I review the literature on teen pregnancy and identify three major themes that dominate academic and public discourse on pregnancy as a social problem. After describing the methodological approach I took to conduct this study, I move on to present my findings. I demonstrate that in negotiating their mothering skills, young teenage mothers construct their claims about pregnancy, parenthood and their future vis-à-vis the dominant public discourse on teen pregnancy. They reconstruct their pregnancy and mothering as non-deviant, claim their status as mature and responsible mothers and challenge the importance of biological age as a predictor of successful mothering. I summarize this paper suggesting that these young women’s narratives should be considered the claims-making activity of a marginalized population of young mothers who are rarely heard in public, yet they do challenge our assumptions about teen mothering and find their own way to resist the dominant discourse on teen pregnancy.
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 | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".