A social relational critique of the biomedical definition and treatment of <scp>ADHD</scp>; ethical practical and political implications
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.
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 | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".