Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering 4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article springs from research I conducted (2001) on the experiences of mothers whose children of mixed heritage were attending elementary school in southern Ontario, Canada. Using feminist research methodologies, I explored what role, if any, their children’s mixed ethnicity had played in their mothering and in their children’s elementary school experi-ences. In the literature written by mothers of children of mixed heritage, there is often an undeniable emphasis on the physical body, with a particular focus on bodily differences arising from ethnicity. When mother and child physically appear to belong to different ethnic backgrounds, mothers write of their tangled emotions. Thus, being mixed or giving birth to mixed children may bring about a uniquely heightened awareness of the body as body and facial parts are analyzed and examined for the interplay of genetic blends. Participants in this study similarly recounted stories that were rooted in the world of the body. Mothers discussed facial features, skin tones, hair colour, and how each particular child looked, for example, “more Canadian ” or “more Latin. ” This study also suggests that multiracial individuals experience the concept of physical attractiveness in dramatically different ways because images of mixed ethnic identity, robust health and illicit sexual allure are jumbled together in the eyes of the beholder. Participants recounted lived experiences of this stereotype while simultaneously experiencing that surge of maternal pride that has been felt by many mothers of all backgrounds—monocultural, multiracial, or otherwise—whenever her child receives a compliment. “Are you in the kitchen or the living room?” I looked down at my feet. One foot rested on the wooden floor of the living room while the second was on the linoleum of the kitchen.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.326 | 0.161 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".