Growing together, knowing together: Dynamics of interracial parenting of mixed‐race children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The purpose of this study was to understand how interracial couples collaboratively describe and make meaning of co‐parenting their mixed‐race children. Background Parenting for interracial couples has become more complex as matters related to race have been pushed to the forefront of public discourse. Existing research often focuses on individual parents' retrospective accounts of co‐parenting mixed‐race children, with findings that vary depending on the parent's racial identity and gender. Notably these studies have predominately centered on the experiences of mothers, leaving a gap in understanding the perspectives of fathers and the dynamics between both parents in co‐parenting relationships. Method Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with six interracial couples in Toronto, Canada, about co‐parenting school‐aged (6–12 years) mixed‐race children. The couples, aged 38–49, were in long‐term relationships (15+ years), married or in common‐law unions, and identified as middle class. Data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Results Results showed that meanings ascribed to co‐parenting experiences varied across three relationship phases: courtship and early stages of the interracial relationship; becoming parents and early parenting experiences; and co‐parenting school‐aged mixed‐race children. Interactions revealed that navigating the journey of co‐parenting mixed‐race children involved an intricate process of mutual growth for couples. Each stage of the relationship catalyzed deeper understandings and fostered resilient familial bonds. Conclusion These findings highlight the unique dynamics of interracial co‐parenting, underscoring the pivotal role of shared learning in shaping familial dynamics ultimately contributing to more inclusive narratives around family and parenting in diverse societies.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".