Mothers Whose Children Have ADD/ADHD Discuss Their Children's Medication Use: An Investigation of Blogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of a frame and discourse analysis of Internet blog sites where parents (usually mothers) discuss their concerns about medication use by their children with attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD). This is a particularly important topic in an era characterized by powerful circulating discourses around the contentious medicalization of, and prevalent pharmaceutical treatments for, ADD/ADHD, as well as the mother blame associated with having a child diagnosed with ADD/ADHD. The findings document that the mothers see ADD/ADHD as legitimate medical diagnoses and view themselves as caretakers of children with brain and neuro-chemical anomalies affecting the behavior of their children. They favor pharmaceutical use and describe themselves as experts in the difficult and complex issues related to pharmaceuticalized parenting. At the same time their adoption of medicalization is contingent as they express specific critiques of some doctors, some types of doctors, and critically evaluate science.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".