A Longitudinal Study of Risk‐Taking Behavior in Adolescents with Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk taking may be regarded as a normative behavior in adolescence. Risk‐taking behaviors may include alcohol, smoking, drug use, delinquency, and acts of aggression. Many studies have explored the relationship between adolescents and risk‐taking behavior; however, only a few studies have examined this link in adolescents with learning disabilities. The purpose of this study was to compare the risk‐taking behavior of adolescents with learning disabilities ( N = 307) and without learning disabilities ( N = 307) over time. Specifically, this study investigated changes over time in adolescents' substance use, engagement in major and minor delinquency, acts of aggression, and gambling activities. Results indicated that, compared to their non–learning disabled peers, adolescents with learning disabilities engaged more frequently in some risk‐taking behaviors including smoking, marijuana use, acts of delinquency, acts of aggression, and gambling. The results also indicate that for some risk‐taking behaviors adolescents with and without learning disabilities differ in their trajectory of engagement. Implications of this study point to the importance of supporting adolescents with learning disabilities when they are faced with difficult decisions around risk taking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".