MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387867566 · doi:10.1177/00302228231209769

A Mother’s Voice: The Construction of Maternal Identity Following Perinatal Loss

2023· article· en· W4387867566 on OpenAlexafffund
Larissa Rossen, Jessica E. Opie, Gypsy A O’Dea

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
FundersTrinity Western University
KeywordsGriefIdentity (music)Active listeningConstruct (python library)PsychologyNarrativeDevelopmental psychologyPsychology of selfSocial psychologyPsychotherapistArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundMaternal identity, a mother's internalized view of self as mother, has not been studied in relation to perinatal loss. This study aimed to investigate how women construct a sense of maternal identity after the loss of a baby.MethodsWe interviewed 10 mothers who had experienced perinatal loss. A Listening Guide framework for narrative analysis was used to identify patterns of giving voice to the mother's own story.ResultsWe identified 12 overarching voices which fell within three distinct groupings: voices of motherhood, voices of grief, and voices of growth. Although bereaved mothers grappled with constructing their maternal identity, they also demonstrated how maternal identity is individually and intuitively created through an honouring and remembering of the child that was lost, resulting in significant growth.ConclusionsThere is need for a broader definition of what constitutes motherhood to encapsulate diverse mothering experiences, including perinatal loss.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207