What Aspects of Peer Relationships Are Impaired in Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participants included 165 children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; 130 boys, 35 girls) and their 1,298 same-sex classmates (1,026 boys, 272 girls) who served as raters. For each child with ADHD, a child of the same sex was randomly selected from the same classroom to serve as a comparison child, which yielded 165 dyads. Consistent with predictions, contrasted with the comparison children, those with ADHD were lower on social preference, higher on social impact, less well liked, and more often in the rejected social status category; they also had fewer dyadic friends. When liking ratings that children made versus received were examined, children with ADHD had less positive imbalance and greater negative imbalance relative to comparison children. Analyses that considered the types of peers who chose children with ADHD as friends or nonfriends demonstrated that children with ADHD were nominated as nonfriends by children of higher social preference and who were better liked by others.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".