A meta-analytic examination of comorbid hyperactive-impulsive-attention problems and conduct problems.
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
The author quantitatively reviewed prevalence rates, defining features, associated features, developmental trajectory, and etiology to examine 3 taxonomic questions about comorbid hyperactive-impulsive-attention problems (HIA) and conduct problems (CP): Do HIA and CP co-occur randomly? Does comorbid HIA-CP differ from HIA-only and CP-only? Do HIA and CP combine synergistically? Results showed that HIA and CP co-occur at a greater than random rate, that comorbid HIA-CP differs from HIA-only and CP-only in multiple ways, and that there is little evidence that HIA and CP combine synergistically. However, sample type, grouping definition, age, gender, and subtype of disruptive behavior often moderated these findings. Overall, the review suggests that HIA-CP is best conceptualized as an additive combination of HIA and CP rather than as a distinct category.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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