Évolution du trouble d’opposition et du trouble des conduites au cours de l’enfance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'etude visait a decrire sur quatre annees (trois temps de mesure) l'evolution des symptomes du trouble oppositionnel et du trouble des conduites selon que les troubles surviennent ensemble ou separement. Elle a ete realisee aupres de 336 enfants (6-13 ans), repartis en trois groupes selon la nature des troubles presentes a l'entree dans l'etude: trouble oppositionnel seulement, trouble des conduites seulement, trouble oppositionnel et trouble des conduites. Des entrevues diagnostiques structurees, basees sur les criteres diagnostiques du Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4 ed., texte rev.; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) ont permis d'evaluer le nombre moyen des symptomes de chaque trouble a chacun des temps de mesure. Les analyses de regression multiniveaux effectuees suggerent que la cooccurrence initiale des troubles n'est associee ni a l'evolution des symptomes du trouble des conduites ni a ceux du trouble oppositionnel. Cependant, cette cooccurrence, a laquelle peut s'ajouter le trouble deficitaire de l'attention avec hyperactivite, peut avoir un effet d'elevation sur le nombre de symptomes presentes par les enfants, ce qui peut, dans certains cas, contribuer au maintien des diagnostics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".