Stigma as a dominant discourse in fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to conduct a scoping review of the literature to explore the many ways stigma affects people with FASD and to highlight the disciplines and places where discourse on FASD and stigma is taking place. Design/methodology/approach Searches were conducted in PubMed, ERIC, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, Families Studies Abstracts and Google Scholar between 2008 and 2018. Search terms focused on stigma, shame and the connection to FASD with a view to looking across social and medical science literature. Findings Searches identified 39 full text manuscripts, 13 of which were included in the scoping review. Stigma toward people with FASD exists in multiple professional forums across disciplines. The relationship between mother’s use of alcohol and the lasting impact on the child is a focus in the articles identified from a public health perspective. The review showed there was limited cross-disciplinary discussion evident. In total 13 articles were selected for inclusion in this review. Research limitations/implications Negative discourses predominate with little attention being paid to possible areas of success as well as cases of lower FASD impacts. There is a significant void in work focusing on positive outcomes for people with FASD. Such discourse would support a better understanding of pathways to more positive outcomes. Originality/value This paper highlights the issue of FASD and stigma through identification of relevant literature and expands the conversation to offer insights into the challenging terrain that individuals with FASD must navigate. The issue of stigma is not linked only to individuals with FASD but also their support systems. It is critical to recognize the multiple attributions of stigma to FASD in order to effectively take up conversations across and between disciplines to promote new discourses focused on de-stigmatization.
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 | 0.027 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".