Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-heterosexual fathers face homophobia, heterosexism, and sexism wherein socially constructed rules dictate their prescribed roles as fathers and individuals. However, little is know about the experiences or concerns of this group. This research investigation involved two interconnected studies. Study One was conducted as an Internet survey that requested mostly demographic information from non-heterosexual men, both fathers and non-fathers, from across Canada, and surveyed selected perceptions of societal beliefs about gay parenting, homophobia and heterosexism. Of the non-fathers, twenty-one wanted children, while only ten did not. Six respondents were unsure. Perceived attitudes towards non-heterosexual parents by both heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals were positive. While non-fathers perceived more positive attitudes towards non-heterosexual parents from other non-heterosexuals than did fathers, perceived attitudes towards non-heterosexual parents by heterosexuals did not differ. Study Two consisted of interviews with both non-heterosexual fathers and non-fathers. Interview questions focused on family structure, how the fathers came to have children, attitudes towards non-heterosexual fathers, current and future concerns about parenting, and services and information available for fathers and potential fathers. Both Studies One and Two revealed many ways that a non-heterosexual man could become a father. The most common way reported was for men to have had children in the context of a heterosexual marriage, and then come out as non-heterosexual at a later date. Less common, but increasing in frequency, were those men who choose adoption, surrogacy, co-parenting, fostering or step-parenting as a means of having children after coming out. Several themes emerged as salient throughout the research. One of the most frequently cited themes was the invisibility of non-heterosexual fathers. This was reflected in the lack of available services and supportive agencies. Other themes emerging included (i) prejudice from both heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals towards these men as parents, (ii) coming out, and (iii) identity conflict. All of these themes were enmeshed in issues around identity organization and synthesis. Many previously married fathers had concerns around coming out as gay and being a father. Conversely, many men who had fathered children after coming out discussed the difficulties in having children, and subsequently incorporating fatherhood into an established gay identity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".