Facteurs décisionnels reliés au statut biologique et au mode de procréation chez des futures mères lesbiennes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims at examining the factors associated with the choice made by lesbian couples opting for motherhood as to which partner will carry the child and what form of procreation will be selected. Semi-structured individual interviews were carried out amongst fifty nulliparous couples (25 couples), 56 % of whom are looking to an anonymous genitor and 44 % to a known genitor. An analysis of the content of the interviews indicates that there are more future biological mothers than there are co-mothers who evoke a childhood that included maternally oriented presumptions and play activities linked to motherhood ; and there are more future biological mothers who were looking forward to bearing a child when adult. On the other hand, a larger proportion of future co-mothers admit to spousal motives for becoming a parent and are the subject of negative reactions from their friends as regards their parental project. Our results show also that though these couples may wish for equality as regards parenting, they nevertheless anticipate specialized parental roles and a prioritizing of the biological link with the child. The current working conditions of the future mothers also impact on their anticipated biological status. Finally, we explored the reasons behind the choice of the procreative instrument. This study suggests that the adoption of Quebec provincial statute 84 has affected the decisions made by lesbian couples as to the management of their pre-partum parental roles.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".