Les Habiletes Cognitives D'eleves Du Primaire Presentant Un Trouble Oppositionnel Avec Provocation Ou Un Trouble Des Conduites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le trouble oppositionnel avec provocation (TOP) et le trouble des conduites (TC) s’observent fréquemment chez les élèves du primaire suivis pour problèmes de com‐ portement. S’ils peuvent être associés à des difficultés cognitives, peu d’études ont distingué le TOP du TC dans cette association. Cette étude compare les performances de 169 élèves répartis en trois groupes (TOP; TC; témoin; âge moyen : 9,9 ans) à une batterie de tests cognitifs. Les groupes TOP et TC ont de moins bonnes performances que les témoins et se différencient sur des mesures exécutives. Ces résultats suggèrent que ces groupes bénéficieraient d’interventions ciblant les habiletés cognitives. Mote clés : trouble de comportement; trouble oppositionnel; trouble des conduites; habiletés cognitives Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD) are frequently seen in primary students being monitored for behavioural problems. While they may be associated with cognitive problems, few studies distinguish between ODD and CD in this association. Our research compares the performances on a battery of cognitive tests of 169 students divided into three groups (ODD, CD and controls, average age 9.9 years). The ODD and CD groups had lower performances than the controls and differed on executive measures. These results suggest that these groups would benefit from interventions targeting cognitive skills. Key words: behaviour problems, oppositional disorder, conduct disorder, cognitive skills
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".