MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991385294 · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.115.1.52

Parenting in mothers with and without attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder.

2006· article· en· W1991385294 on OpenAlexaff
Candice Murray, Charlotte Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Abnormal Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderDevelopmental psychologyParenting stylesConduct disorderClinical psychologyAttention deficitAttention deficit disorderPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined the impact of maternal attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on parenting behaviors. Sixty mothers between the ages of 31 and 50 with (n = 30) and without (n = 30) ADHD and their 8- to 14-year-old children with ADHD completed self-report and laboratory measures of monitoring of child behavior, consistency in parenting, and parenting problem-solving abilities. These parenting behaviors were selected because of their established links to the development of child behavior problems. As predicted, mothers with ADHD were found to be poorer at monitoring child behavior and less consistent disciplinarians compared with mothers without ADHD. There was some evidence to support the prediction that mothers with ADHD were less effective at problem solving about childrearing issues than control mothers. The differences between the 2 groups of mothers persisted after child oppositional and conduct-disordered behavior were controlled. These results indicate that parenting is an area of functioning that requires more attention in adult ADHD research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations184
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Abnormal PsychologySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207