MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4237844576 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14654796.v1

The Missing Voices-Mothers Raising Children With ADHD: A Qualitative Inquiry

2021· preprint· en· W4237844576 on OpenAlexaff
Iris Castillo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersStrong
KeywordsRaising (metalworking)NarrativeGovernmentalityPsychologyPower (physics)PoliticsQualitative researchNarrative inquiryDevelopmental psychologyAffect (linguistics)Gender studiesSociologySocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) is a behavioural disorder commonly diagnosed among children. The symptoms associated with the diagnosis not only affect the child, but everyone connected to the child. For mothers raising children with ADHD there are often various demands and pressures placed on them. This major research paper addresses some of these mothering experiences through a qualitative methodology known as narrative inquiry (NI). This study centers mothers’ stories of everyday encounters at home, school, in medical clinics, and within the community. It also takes up these narratives through the framework of critical feminist race theory (CRFT), with a pinch of Foucauldian philosophy addressing knowledge, power, and governmentality through bio-politics. Jonathan Gottschall said it best, “We are, as a species, addicted to story. Even when the body goes to sleep, the minds stays up all night, telling itself stories.” I invite you on a journey of stories through the eyes of every loving mother raising a child with ADHD.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder→French-language works237,207→