You can map objects to db updates, and map query results to objects. Neither of those objects needs to have a mapping to actual relations, like how ORMs insist on.
And db updates are either relations or tuples (and a tuple is a relation with cardinality of 1, so...)
If copying query results to a list of structs is enough to qualify as an ORM, then the term is so generic as to be entirely useless.
The minute you add relationships your approach becomes unusable.
There is a reason ORMs have persisted for over 30 years.
Congratulations, you've invented an ORM.
Source: Wrote an ORM that other people actually use. Still adding features, twelve years later.
But then it's nice to have something that generates optimised, database-specific SQL, can handle date/number conversion, supports many-many relationships, converting BLOB to binary streams etc.
An ORM library maps an entire relational database to a graph of objects, with the intention of abstracting away the relational database. Copying query results to structs doesn't actually do any of that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93relational_ma...