MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6995639664

Parents, watching: introducing surveillance into modern American parenting

2010· dissertation· en· W6995639664 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIowa Research Online (University of Iowa) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Interactions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityQuarter (Canadian coin)AnxietyPoint (geometry)Social mediaPhone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last quarter of the twentieth century, there has been a significant expansion in the means by which parents in the United States might use technologies to watch their children. Watching and worrying about children are not new to the job of parenthood, but the ways of watching now available to parents represents a change of degree so great as to represent a change in kind. The parental gaze has become technologized. This dissertation investigates what happens when man-made devices insert themselves into this most basic of human endeavors.\nParenting desires, social expectations, and technological capacities have co-evolved in the United States to a point where the norms of parental watching are increasingly technology-based. This is a "mixed methods," cross-case study. It delves into the particulars of three distinct media while looking for patterns of use and effects across the different technologies. The core of this investigation is three case studies of particular surveillance technologies that all came to prominence, in terms of their popularity or frequency of use, in the United States in the last thirty years. The three subjects of these case studies--fetal ultrasound, Eisenberg, Murkoff, and Hathaway's 1984 pregnancy advice and guide book What to Expect When You're Expecting, and baby monitors--are all media that offer parents the opportunity to be better and less anxious parents by enhancing their powers of parenting observation. They form an optical--textual--acoustic triad that demonstrates the breadth of media that are enlisted into surveillance practices.\nThese new anxiety technologies change thinking, perceptions, and attitudes. They serve both to introduce new human capacities and to direct and to mold existing capacities. They have also helped to change our ideas of what is possible. A few overarching characteristics of American parental thinking have helped to pushed surveillance to prominence. Middle class American parents of the last quarter of the twentieth century have come to feel that the world is a more dangerous place for their children. They perceive their offspring as more vulnerable to dangers and as less capable of avoiding these dangers on their own. Parents also feel an increased sense of personal responsibility for the safety of their children. It is not that that contemporary parents have warmer or deeper feelings toward their children, but rather that contemporary parents believe that they both can and should control a much broader range of dangers to their children than parents in the past believed they could control.\nThe "anxiety technologies" of this study serve in part to bring home to their users the riskiness of parenting and the vulnerability of the fetus/infant. These technologies have come to promote responsibility expansion, efficiency orientation, and risk focus for parents. While these technologies do provide parents with a great deal more focused information, many of the perceived enhancements in powers to effect outcomes are presumptive, illusory effects of actual increases in information. Information without influence is as likely to contribute to anxiety as to power.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIowa Research Online (University of Iowa)Same topicPlant and Fungal Interactions ResearchFrench-language works237,207