Family Functioning, Well-being, and Meaning Making in Bi+ Mother Families: A Minority Stress and Family Systems Theory Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis, comprised of two studies, used a mixed-methods approach guided by Minority Stress Theory, Family Systems Theory, and Intersectionality to gain an understanding of family functioning and meaning-making in bi+ mother families. In the first study, 168 bi+ mothers participated in an online survey comprised of various standardised measures of maternal mental health, minority stress, family processes, and child adjustment. Most participants identified as women, were white, highly educated, and lived in the UK, the US, and Canada. Participants were in various relationship constellations, however most had a singular male partner. Quantitative analysis illustrated the importance of minority stress for aspects of both maternal mental health and family functioning, but did not predict children’s adjustment. Between-group comparisons suggested that mothers with multiple partners experienced significantly higher levels of minority stress from their family of origin and relating to parenting than those with one male partner, but no differences were observed between groups in terms of children’s adjustment. In the second study, a subset of participants from the first study took part in online timeline interviews. Narrative analysis of these interviews suggested that bi+ mothers adopted various narrative strategies that reinforced and resisted the negative effects of minority stress and normalised or differentiated their family and their parenting. Together, these studies offer new insights into bi+ mother families, with implications both theoretically, for expanding Minority Stress Theory to better account for individual meaning-making processes, as well as the impact of minority stress on families, and practically, for supporting bi+ mothers, to promote the best outcomes for them and their families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".