Opposition-Defiance in the Second Year of Life: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent epidemiological evidence suggests that even in the midst of the "terrible twos," frequent/severe oppositional-defiant behaviors (ODBs) are not common among toddlers and hence may be indicative of a significant opposition-defiance problem. The main objective of this study was to obtain a maximum likelihood estimate of the proportion of toddlers in the general population who are reported to exhibit ODBs on a frequent basis, and to test for gender differences therein. Data came from The Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, a survey of a representative birth cohort of children from the Canadian province of Québec. Multigroup latent class analysis was used to distinguish between toddlers who exhibit ODBs on a frequent basis and those who do so only occasionally or not at all. The results show that 12.4% of 17-month-old boys and girls exhibit ODBs on a frequent basis. Further, the results show a strong positive association between opposition-defiance and physical aggression early in life, with a great majority of physically aggressive toddlers exhibiting ODBs on a frequent basis. In contrast, the results show that only a minority of toddlers who may be experiencing a significant opposition-defiance problem exhibit physically aggressive behaviors on a frequent basis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".