What Aspects of Peer Relationships Are Impaired in Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder?
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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