Motor coordination and emotional–behavioral problems in children
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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize recent research on developmental coordination disorder (DCD), with particular attention to comorbidity and related questions of etiology. RECENT FINDINGS: Although a general consensus on the disorder definition exists, case identification in research studies remains problematic. Despite this, recent research has reported high levels of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and internalizing disorders among children with poor motor coordination. These findings offer some support for the longstanding view that DCD may be one facet of a broader syndrome that includes learning difficulties and deficits in attention. 'Pure' cases are common, however, and other work suggests that DCD and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder have distinct causes. There is also some evidence that internalizing disorder may be a consequence of DCD. SUMMARY: Measurement issues in DCD persist, whereas findings on comorbidity have both illuminated the nature of the disorder and heightened debate on its usefulness as a distinct diagnostic entity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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