Expected levels of behaviour problems in a population sample of children between four and eighteen years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bongers I, Koot H, Ende J et al. The normative development of child and adolescent problem behavior. J Abnorm Psychol2003 ; 112 : 179 –192 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: What is the developmental trajectory of the Child Behavior Checklist in children in the general population? Longitudinal study of a single population-based cohort. Zuid-Holland province, The Netherlands; 1993–1991. 2076 children aged 4–16 years in 1983, randomly sampled from the general population. Participants were followed up in 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1991. Child behaviour checklist scores at each follow up interval for each of the following components (internalising scale: scoring on feelings of anxiety/depression, withdrawal, somatic complaints; externalising scale: scoring on aggressive behaviour, delinquent behaviour; and scales scoring … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Babnormal%2Bpsychology%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAbnorm%2BPsychol%26rft.aulast%253DBongers%26rft.auinit1%253DI.%2BL.%26rft.volume%253D112%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D179%26rft.epage%253D192%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2Bnormative%2Bdevelopment%2Bof%2Bchild%2Band%2Badolescent%2Bproblem%2Bbehavior.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1037%252F0021-843X.112.2.179%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12784827%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0021-843X.112.2.179&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12784827&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F6%2F4%2F107.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182925000001&link_type=ISI
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".