Medicalisation and changes in advice to mothers about children's mental health issues 1970 to 1990 as compared to 1991 to 2010: evidence from Chatelaine magazine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, I examine the ways in which the portrayal of children's mental health issues has changed in a high-circulating mass print magazine, Chatelaine, in Canada over the last four decades of the twentieth century through the advice given to mothers regarding their children's behaviour and emotions. I selected these four decades as they reflect the rapid growth in medicalisation, risk society, neoliberalism and intensive mothering and corresponding medical treatment for diagnosed children's mental health issues. I divided the 40 years into two 20-year periods so that I could compare and contrast the ways in which child mental health issues were represented. There were continuities between the two periods, particularly in regard to the focus on emotion work and management; there were also important differences. During this period, the changing content of the magazine indicated an increasing pathologisation of individual children through increased coverage of the risks of psychiatric diagnoses and the possibility of pharmaceutical and other biomedical interventions. Keywords: riskmedicalisationchildren's mental healthmagazinecontent analysisparenting styles Acknowledgements I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for funding this project. I also acknowledge the research assistance of Natasha Janketic and Joanne Levy Sack and the reviewers of the earlier drafts of this article. I owe particular gratitude to Andy Alaszewski, the editor of this journal for his help.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".