An Interpretative Synthesis of Coparenting Among New Parents in Diverse Sociocultural Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although primarily a practical matter in a family, coparenting is strongly modified by the existing culture and surrounding society. The development of coparenting, especially in its early stages is highly affected by existing gender ideologies, work cultures and family policies. Despite the widely agreed importance of socio-cultural embeddedness of coparenting, less is known about the interplay between coparenting systems and wider social and policy contexts. This study analyzed how existing work and family policies and underlying sets of values and beliefs frame the meaning, form, and construction of coparenting during early parenthood. To better understand how the sociocultural context frames the construction of coparenting, a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) method was applied for searching, sampling, analyzing, and synthesizing the coparenting literature. The interpretative review process included the following phases: a broadly defined search strategy, applying systematic inclusion and exclusion criteria, and conducting a descriptive mapping and an in-depth process analysis and synthesis of all the selected articles ( N = 24). The review yielded three frameworks, in which new parents construct their coparenting in diverse socio-cultural contexts: gender equality, family solidarity, and social support. The studies falling into these frameworks see the effects of the form of the coparenting relationship (parents only/parents plus) and the role of institutional support (high/low) and cultural and religious beliefs (high/low) on coparenting differently. The literature synthesis indicated that coparenting is a dynamic system in which parents and other parental figures adopt culturally appropriate practices and roles when taking care of children. These findings, which broaden the dominant western-centered perspective on coparenting, can be used in the development of family policies, services, and coparenting programs for today’s diverse, global multicultural families.
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 | 0.060 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".