Motivations de couples d’hommes à adopter au Québec et leurs préférences pour l’âge, le sexe et l’origine ethnique de l’enfant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework: Compared to lesbian women, gay men face more barriers that may hinder their intention to parent. In addition to biological constraints, they live in a heterosexist society that traditionally places the role of caregiver to women. The gay community often defines itself outside of parenting. In Quebec, thanks to Bill 84 of 2002, same-sex couples have access to domestic adoption through Child Protective Services (CPS), which allows them to choose several characteristics of their child.Objectives: The aim of the study is to examine the genesis of the desire for fatherhood of male couples in Quebec and their motivations for choosing domestic adoption over another mode of access to parenthood, as well as their preference for the age, sex and ethnic origin of their child.Methodology: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with sixty-nine fathers met in their home. The interview transcripts were thematically analyzed with Nvivo.Results: The results indicate that a majority of fathers have had a strong desire for fatherhood for a very long time and chose adoption mainly out of altruistic consideration. Most fathers did not have a preference for the characteristics of their children except for age (under 2 years old). When preferences were expressed, they were mostly for white boys.Conclusion: The discussion highlights that in the discourse of these gay men, their desire for parenthood does not seem to stand out from that of other fathers, but that heteronormativity impacts their motivations to become adoptive fathers. Gender stereotypes and intersectionality are also discussed to explain preferences related to children’s gender and ethnicity.Contribution: This study addresses the lack of data on gay adoptive fathers in Quebec. It will help to dispel any preconceptions that they may have about the adoption process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".