Commentary: Are ADHD symptoms habit‐like? – a commentary on Goodman et al (2014)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent publication of the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM‐5) unleashed a torrent of dissatisfaction with and criticism of the ongoing use of a symptom‐based classification system, based on descriptive phenotypical features. Thus, the ‘multiple memory systems’ framework proposed in the accompanying Annual Research Review by Goodman et al. ( Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 55, 2014, XX) as a potential explanatory mechanism underlying several psychiatric disorders, is innovative and consistent with an emergent focus on transdiagnostic core mechanisms. In this commentary, I discuss the ‘merit and mire’ of the proposed framework, focusing on its potential for delineating neurobehavioral mechanisms underlying psychiatric disorders, with particular emphasis on one of the neurodevelopmental disorders, ADHD.
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 | 0.008 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.057 | 0.064 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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".