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 English language North American ‘women's magazines’ indexed in the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".