Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applied behaviour therapies are highly proscriptive and controversial evidence-based autism interventions that have, in many settings, become the standard of care. Autism and the Culture of Therapy is the first empirical study of applied behaviour therapies. To understand such therapies, we need to assess them in everyday practice, through the multiple interpretations, ethical frameworks, and applications of practitioners. Julia Gruson-Wood examines how applied behaviour checklists, forms, protocols, and plans shape professional consciousness, how managerial governance strategically appropriates clinical data, how the rise of para-practitioners democratizes science, and how gender, sexuality, and identity politics imbue clinical practice and social responses to autism. Drawing on Ontario as a case study, Autism and the Culture of Therapy reveals the fascinating and complex workplace culture of therapy providers, telling the story of a clinical field that has risen along with rates of autism diagnosis, and redefined what autism means.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".