“What Do You Like/Dislike About the Treatments You’re Currently Using?”
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) often participate in many treatments, requiring parents’ dedication of time, money, and energy, and necessitating dealing with multiple service providers. To learn about parents’ experience in seeking and using treatments for their child with ASD, the authors asked them, “What do you like/dislike about the treatment(s) you’re currently using?” In this web-based, qualitative study, participants consisted of 486 parents (92% mothers) of children (80% boys; children’s M age = 8.3 years) with autism ( n = 290, 59.7%), Asperger syndrome ( n = 115, 23.6%), or pervasive developmental disorder—not otherwise specified ( n = 81, 16.7%). The families lived in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, and Ireland. Parents’ written statements addressed more “dislikes” (70%) than “likes” (47%), and there were no universally liked or disliked interventions. Six themes emerged and are discussed: effectiveness of treatments, relationships with professionals, access to treatments, costs, medication concerns, and stress.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 it