Exploring the Social Experiences of Adults on the Autism Spectrum: Views on Friendships, Dating and Partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis utilizes original quantitative and qualitative research and takes a structural/critical perspective of disability.Methodology involves participatory action techniques as questions were formulated from discussions with volunteers with autism/Asperger syndrome.The paper draws on the limited qualitative research in this area; including Sperry & Mesibov"s 2005 study ("Perceptions of Social Challenges of Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders") as well as Hurlbutt & Chalmere"s (2002) long term qualitative study of 3 individuals with autism.Persons with autism were surveyed regarding their experiences and opinions of relationships, their day to day lived experiences and their aspirations.The survey provided an opportunity for respondents to share both negative and positive experiences, as well as possible insights into how their communities could be more inclusive and provide better social opportunities.While there is a considerable amount of research from the perspective of families, service providers and educators about persons with autism spectrum disorders, there is a startling lack of research involving the personal accounts of individuals with autism regarding their own social experiences.This study attempts to address this disparity by giving adults with autism a voice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".