A social relational critique of the biomedical definition and treatment of <scp>ADHD</scp>; ethical practical and political implications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ), its existence and treatment, is a contentious matter. The dominant view in medicine considers that ADHD is a psychiatric disorder. My position is to challenge this from a social relational orientation. I explore here a critique of the psychiatric disease model of causation and treatment, particularly the use of medication. A series of prejudices based on a political and social constructionist orientation are offered to address the ethics, politics and practice implications of the practitioner critical of the biomedical model of diagnosis and treatment especially the use of medication. This device is employed in order to invite critical reflection and further debate in a field dominated by the medical and genetic arguments in support of ADHD as a psychiatric disease. The implications of more open debate are explored, together with directions for more politically and ethically informed practice with children and their families.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it