MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983315567 · doi:10.1177/1087054705284246

ADHD Characteristics in Canadian Aboriginal Children

2006· article· en· W1983315567 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lola Baydala, Jody Sherman, Carmen Rasmussen, Erik Wikman, Henry L. Janzen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMisericordia Community HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The authors examine how many Aboriginal children attending two reservation-based elementary schools in Northern Alberta, Canada, would demonstrate symptoms associated with ADHD using standardized parent and teacher questionnaires. METHOD: Seventy-five Aboriginal children in Grades 1 through 4 are tested. Seventeen of the 75 (22.7%) Aboriginal children demonstrated a match on parent and teacher forms, with T-scores greater than 1.5 standard deviations from the mean on the Conners' ADHD Index, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) Hyperactive/Impulsive Index, DSM-IV Inattentive Index, and/or DSM-IV Total Combined T-score. RESULTS: The number of Aboriginal children found to have symptoms associated with ADHD is significantly higher than expected based on prevalence rates in the general population. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest either a high prevalence of ADHD in Aboriginal children or unique learning and behavioral patterns in Aboriginal children that may erroneously lead to a diagnosis of ADHD if screening questionnaires are used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207