Discourses about children's mental health and developmental disorders in <scp>N</scp>orth <scp>A</scp>merican women's magazines 1990–2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes and analyses the portrayal of children's mental health and developmental issues ( CMHI ) in articles located in a random sample of a selection of available high‐circulating E nglish language N orth A merican ‘women's magazines’ indexed in the R eader's G uide to P eriodical L iterature from 1990 to 2012. It is based upon a qualitative discourse analysis. CMHI are portrayed as materially, biologically real, prevalent and growing in incidence, and severity. They are also portrayed as located in the ‘non‐normal’, ‘non‐nice’, ‘disliked’ and ‘non‐successful’ individual child. Neither the facticity nor the biomedicalization of CMHI is questioned. The psy‐scientists and practitioners cited as experts for the ‘disorders’ offer contradictory and confusing information and advice. The possible theoretical and pragmatic explanations and consequences of this portrayal are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".