Cited by 13Disability Rights and RepresentationAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

"Ultimately, it's a matter of safety, and resisting ostracization": Understanding Neurodivergent Masking with Online Communities

Open access
Kritika, Kritika, Williams, Rua Mae, Ringland, Kathryn E.·2025·Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3706598.3714094

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kritika, K., Williams, R. M., & Ringland, K. E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • Computer Graphics and Technology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2025-04-25
Pages
1-14
OpenAlex
W4409735970
Cited by
13
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 3
FWCI
9.56
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
neurodivergence, masking, online communities, ostracism, safety, autistic identity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review