Understanding “Friendship” Among Autistic Adults: Insights From Narratives of Everyday and Social Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This work explores the ways autistic individuals describe and perceive their friendship relationships. Through qualitative analysis of participants' accounts, I discuss the importance that autistic adults attribute to values of “comfort,” “acceptance,” and “trust” in their relationships with the people they call “friends” and explain the centrality of these aspects to how they understand and define “friendship.” By conceptualizing friendship as relatedness, I argue that perceptions and practices of friendship among autistic people cannot be fully understood if not examined in the context of the intersection of personal difficulties, physical‐social environments, cultural attitudes, and lived experiences of autistic individuals. Accordingly, this study offers an analysis of how these intersecting aspects constitute a basis for the building of intersubjectivity among autistic persons and construct the shared moral values and expectations that underlie their understanding of, and approach to, friendship. Furthermore, by showing how friendship perceptions among autistic individuals stem in part from shared corporeal and perceptual experiences, this study offers insights into the perceptual foundations of social relationships. Through examining friendship and sociability, I tease out the intricate daily and social experiences of autistic people and elucidate the complexity of the category of friendship and its efficiency for understanding human experiences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".