Interracial couples’ experiences with coparenting school-aged mixed-race children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fostering positive racial identities in racialized children is associated with several indicators of optimal development. There is little research investigating the socialization processes through which interracial parents meet this need for their mixed-race children. To address this, in-depth interviews were conducted with six couples actively parenting mixed-race children in an urban context. METHOD: Interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith et al., 2009) was used to generate rich descriptions of the meaning that interracial couples' made of jointly parenting mixed-race children. RESULTS: This analysis yielded three core transecting themes. First, participants described how joint parenting led to transformative racial identity experiences, both as individuals and couples. Second, participants described how significant experiences with their racially different partner, with their mixed-race children, and with the external world led to the realization of their uniqueness in a racially stratified society. Third, all couples described the process through which they framed their interracial status as a strength for their mixed-race children, emphasizing the benefits of dual racial exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This research has exposed the unique needs of mixed-race families in the context of a rapidly shifting sociopolitical climate and period of racial reckoning. The perspectives of these families need to be understood to ensure the provision of culturally sensitive, competent, and affirming practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".