The procreative identities of men in same‐sex relationships choosing surrogacy: A new theoretical understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The growing visibility of same‐sex two‐parent families and the increased use of surrogacy have expanded LGBT parenting scholarship to include experiences of gay and other men in same‐sex relationships. Yet, even with the growth of research over the past decade on gay and other sexual minority men's parenting experiences, such studies are still undertheorized. The purpose of this article is to conceptualize an enhanced family theory model that addresses the evolution of the procreative identities of men in same‐sex relationships who decide to have children via surrogacy. This framework will identify the unique issues and factors that support same‐sex partnered men's (a) procreative consciousness; (b) procreative responsibility; and (c) procreative transitioning, including barriers that may exert a long‐term impact on fathers in same‐sex relationships. As scholarship on fatherhood among gay, bisexual, and other men expands, the development of a family studies model that examines surrogacy trajectories in the context of men's same‐sex relationships, from considerations of procreation to post‐birth experiences, can enhance family studies theory and 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".