MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967524552 · doi:10.1177/1087054713520221

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Is Better Conceptualized as a Disorder of Emotional Regulation

2014· article· en· W1967524552 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsInterior HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConduct disorderClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: It has been reported that Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) can be differentiated into distinct subtypes associated with different outcomes in adulthood. We examined whether ODD is conceptually independent and coherent, and whether ODD and Conduct Disorder (CD) are expressions of the same core deficit. METHOD: The data come from a sample of 4,380 children for whom SNAP rating scales were available. Parallel analysis was performed on the eight-item ODD diagnostic items and on the SNAP-90 scale. These were factor analyzed and the components were correlated. RESULTS: ODD has one underlying factor, whereas the parent-rated SNAP has nine underlying factors. ODD items grouped together with emotional lability and irritability items, which did not group with CD. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the separation of ODD and CD but not ODD and emotion dysregulation. CONCLUSION: The expanded ODD factor more likely captures a disorder of emotion regulation, rather than a disruptive behavior disorder.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it