MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008711816 · doi:10.1177/2333393620907588

Tensions in Maternal Care for Children, Youth, and Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder

2020· article· en· W3008711816 on OpenAlexaff
David Nicholas, Radha MacCulloch, Wendy Roberts, Lonnie Zwaigenbaum, Patricia McKeever

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Qualitative Nursing Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of AlbertaAutism CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderPsychologyAutismInvisibilityDevelopmental psychologyResistance (ecology)Clinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the experiences of mothers caring for an individual with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) ranging from 5 to 25 years of age, and examined pervasive tensions in caregiving. Guided by ethnographic methods, a retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Interviews with 85 mothers were analyzed inductively. Prevalent tensions in maternal caregiving were identified: (a) difficulties obtaining, yet resistance to, an ASD diagnosis; (b) identified giftedness of the child versus notions of deficit imposed by others; (c) disability-related behaviors erroneously interpreted as 'poor parenting'; (d) contradictory considerations in diagnosis disclosure; (e) the invisibility yet pervasiveness of ASD; (f) extensive need for, yet the lack of, accessible services; (g) ASD-related care demands versus other pressing responsibilities; (h) arguments for inclusive versus exclusive services; and (i) aims of nurturing independence versus managing safety risk. Tensions were heightened by insufficient supports relative to need. Implications and recommendations for practice and policy are offered.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Qualitative Nursing ResearchSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207