MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056578098 · doi:10.1177/0261018307087990

Good, bad, thwarted or addicted? Discourses of substance-using mothers

2008· article· en· W2056578098 on OpenAlex
Colleen Reid, Lorraine Greaves, Nancy Poole

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Policy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationSubstance useFocus groupPsychologySocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we examined discourses of mothers who use substances. Focus groups were conducted at two different treatment programmes with diverse women who identified as mothers challenged by substance use. Real scenarios were presented to the participants and feedback was sought about how the women within the scenarios managed their situations and the actions taken by legal, media, and health authorities. Through the use of three lenses - rights, risks, and evidence - we identified four major discourses in the participants' talk. The `good mother', `bad mother', `thwarted mother' and `addicted mother' discourses revealed the multiple and at times contradictory ways the women made sense of their lives. Within all of the discourses the mother-child bond and the importance of providing necessary supports to mothers with substance-use problems were central. The women's discourses highlighted the challenges of negotiating the prevailing attitudes, practices and stigmas of being a substance-using mother while trying to do the right thing for their children.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it