Bibliographic record
Abstract
As I established in the introduction, the subject of fathers’ embodied caregiving has received little scholarly attention up to now. So literature which bears directly on the research I will be describing in this book is scant. But several areas of existing research bear on it indirectly, and would be enriched by its inclusion. As a study of fathers’ caregiving, it could add to a burgeoning literature on fathering, as identity and practice. In its focus on men as hands-on caregivers, it could extend research on caregiving as body work, and the circumstances in which men engage in it. Finally, and most directly, it could be a significant addition to research on embodiment — and men’s bodies in particular. More importantly, it has the potential not only to add to these existing areas of research, but to act as a nexus bringing them all together. In the sections that follow, I fill in the broader research context, as a means of shading in the background and making space for what needs to be in the foreground. I end the chapter with a discussion of the theoretical and methodological assumptions that guide my research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".