Mothers and grandmothers: <scp>Rethinking</scp> motherhood in the context of intergenerational caregiving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study examines how the intergenerational caregiving exchanges from grandmother (maternal and paternal) to mother influence early motherhood experiences and childcare practices. Background Motherhood scholarship often neglects the influence of grandmothers on how women mother, or when acknowledging caregivers like grandmothers often fails to consider the potentially ambivalent ways grandmother caregiving affects mothers. Research on intergenerational support, however, documents the tension between solidarity and ambivalence characterizing care exchanges within families. More attention should be paid to understanding the complex ways grandmother participation intersects with a woman's motherhood experience. Methods This study asks how intergenerational caregiving by grandmothers shapes a woman's experiences of early motherhood, utilizing qualitative interview data with 34 Chinese immigrant mothers about their postpartum experiences, conducted in Canada between 2018 and 2019. Results Data revealed that grandmother care was an important, though often ambivalent, element of Chinese immigrant mothers' experience of new motherhood. New mothers sought to assert their autonomy and competence while simultaneously sharing mothering duties with grandmothers, whose interventions and care labor could simultaneously provoke feelings of guilt, gratitude, and resentment. Women assumed motherhood roles and identities at the same time they navigated the tensions between family solidarity and a desire for mothering autonomy. Conclusion Highlighting the significant but ambivalent role grandmothers can play in a woman's transition to motherhood demonstrates the importance of bringing grandmothers into how contemporary motherhood is understood.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".