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
OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal study examines the recall accuracy of childhood ADHD symptoms in late adolescence and early adulthood by youth and their parents, compared with reports obtained during childhood. METHOD: Participants (N = 94) are initially evaluated when they are aged between 7 and 11 and reassessed when they are aged between 16 and 22 years. All participants meet full DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD in childhood. Assessments at baseline and follow-up include clinical interviews and ADHD checklists. RESULTS: Results indicate that both youth and their parents have limited retrospective recall of childhood symptoms. Current ADHD symptoms improve accuracy of recall. Specifically, when current symptoms are endorsed, participants are more likely to recall clinically significant childhood ADHD symptoms. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that late adolescents and young adults with ADHD and their parents have limited ability to accurately recall childhood symptoms, with reporting of past symptoms influenced by reports of severity of current symptoms.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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