Ideal, good enough and failed motherhood: how disabled Canadian mothers manage in hostile circumstances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ideal motherhood, characterised by expectations of intensive, limitless and selfless care, serves to hold women responsible for all that befalls their children, and works to individualise and privatise the work of childbearing and rearing. The individualisation of mothering work, the shortcomings of social and structural supports for that work, and the sanctions on women who fail to meet normative expectations of ideal motherhood are intensified for disabled women. Our narrative interviews with 44 disabled Canadian women about their pregnancy decisions and mothering experiences illuminate normative notions of what kinds of women can, and perhaps should, be mothers, and highlight the specific challenges disabled mothers face. The women described barriers to becoming and remaining mothers, and were particularly vulnerable to social isolation, abusive partners, and the effects of poverty. They also experienced surveillance and intervention from helping professionals and multiple structural barriers to accommodation. The women’s stories highlight ‘disability embodiment’, the interaction between their corporeal issues and the social, political and economic aspects of disability, which deeply affect disabled women’s mothering.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".