Between gaining acceptance and avoiding harm: navigating stigma and its consequences among autistic individuals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines autistic adults’ narratives and accounts of their experiences. It focuses on exploring how autistic individuals interpret and respond to stigma and negative attitudes surrounding autism. Thematic analysis of qualitative data obtained from interviews and focus groups reveals how autistic persons reconstruct their self-perception and definition of autism in response to stigma and societal attitudes. Further, the analysis reveals the prevalent use of social camouflaging among autistic adults to manage and cope with their stigmatized identities. This research contends that the dual approach that appeared among participants of advocating for autism acceptance while masking and concealing autism, reflects a continuous balancing act between avoiding stigma and its harmful consequences and striving to fit in, gain acceptance, engage in social interaction and relationships. Reframing autism as positive and reporting decreased motivation for camouflaging and increased self-acceptance, demonstrate stigma resistance and the agency and power possessed by autistic people.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it