MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993279892 · doi:10.18061/dsq.v39i4.6501

"Get Your Child in Order:" Illustrations of Courtesy Stigma from Fathers Raising Both Autistic and Non-autistic Children

2019· article· en· W2993279892 on OpenAlexaff
Asalah Alareeki, Bonnie Lashewicz, Leah Shipton

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability Studies Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourtesyPsychologyStigma (botany)Developmental psychologyAutismRaising (metalworking)Social psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parents of autistic children report relatively high levels of parenting stress that includes experiencing stigma. Yet, research about stigma experienced by parents of autistic children is limited, and in particular, fathers' experiences are rarely documented. The purpose of this study is to illuminate courtesy stigma experiences of fathers of autistic children. We conducted a secondary analysis of narrative data from a subset of 16 fathers raising both autistic and non-autistic children. Fathers participated in in-depth interviews about successes and struggles in raising autistic children. Fathers experienced "felt stigma" in forms of censorship, isolation, guilt and defying stigma. Fathers navigate ableist stereotypes, which are interwoven with stereotypes of traditional masculinity. Fathers defy stigma but are also part of processes that perpetuate stigma. Further, understandings of the complexities of courtesy stigma are needed, particularly through studies that target fathers from diverse cultural, racial, family structural and socio-economic backgrounds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.355
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability Studies QuarterlySame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207