Development of disruptive behaviors in young children: A prospective population‐based cohort study
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
Abstract We know relatively little about the development of disruptive behaviors (DBs), and gender differences therein. The objective of this study was to describe the continuity and discontinuity in the degree to which young children in the general population are reported to exhibit specific DBs over time. Data came from the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development. First, the results show that relatively few children exhibit DBs on a frequent basis at 41 months of age. Second, the results show that a majority of children who exhibit a particular DB on a frequent basis at 41 months of age did not do so 1 year earlier. In addition, a majority of children who exhibited a particular DB on a frequent basis at 29 months of age no longer do so 1 year later. Third, gender differences in DBs (boys > girls) are either emerging or at least increasing in magnitude between 29 and 41 months of age. Consistent with the canalization of the behavioral development principle, children who exhibited DBs on a frequent basis at 29 months of age are less likely to stop doing so in the following year if they had exhibited the same behaviors at 17 months of age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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