MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394784926 · doi:10.1080/27703371.2024.2342419

Gay Dads to Be: Reflections on Gender, Sexuality, Family, and Race in Adoption and Surrogacy

2024· article· en· W4394784926 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. W. Underwood

Bibliographic record

VenueLGBTQ+ Family An Interdisciplinary Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender studiesQueerHuman sexualityConsciousnessSociologyCompetence (human resources)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prospective gay fathers must carefully prepare, plan, and think about parenting—often for years—before they become parents. This article explores how different paths to parenthood provide opportunities for Canadian gay men to reflect upon their preferences for surrogacy or adoption, the meaning of fatherhood in the absence of a woman as a primary caregiver, and the opportunities and potential shortcomings of gay fatherhood. Based on analysis of 23 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Canadian prospective gay fathers, I show that adoption and surrogacy foster different degrees of reflection along the journey to fatherhood. I argue that gay men who pursue surrogacy express masculine competence and draw upon scripts of conventional fatherhood, while gay men who pursue adoption experience a disruption in their masculine competence and must reflect on their potential inadequacies as male parents. Further, I include a brief discussion of some counterevidence: these pressures on the journey to gay fatherhood can be resisted through a queer, anti-racist, and feminist consciousness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLGBTQ+ Family An Interdisciplinary JournalSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207