Gender Differences in Stress Resistance of Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The research provided the empirical study of the gender differences in the experience of stress and coping with it in boys and girls diagnosed with high-functioning autism through qualitative methods. Methods: Observation was the main method used in the study, which was implemented by filling in the observation diary by specialists and parents of adolescents with autistic disorders. The main coping strategies under research were addressing others, avoiding the problem, and working on the problem. Content analysis was used as the main data processing method.
 Results: The study found some gender differences in coping with stress between males and females. Besides, it was found that the use of certain forms of coping behavior differs depending on age.
 Conclusions: The study allowed us to determine that boys tend to choose a strategy of working on the problem in interpersonal interaction, while girls are disposed to avoid the problem. The opposite picture was observed for the social environment: girls with ASD tend to use a strategy of addressing others, and boys avoid the problem through self-isolation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".