Compulsive-like Behavior in Individuals with Down Syndrome: Its Relation to Mental Age Level, Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
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
This study examined the nature of repetitive, ritualistic, and compulsive-like behaviors in 50 typically developing children and 50 individuals with Down syndrome (DS), matched on mental age (MA; M = 59.72 months). Parents reported on their children's compulsive-like behaviors-including ritualistic habits-and perfectionistic behaviors, as well as their children's adaptive and maladaptive behaviors. Results indicated that children with DS show similar MA-related changes in compulsive-like behaviors compared to the MA-matched comparison group. Younger children (both typical and DS) exhibited significantly more compulsive-like behaviors than older children. In general, children with and without DS did not differ from each other in terms of the number of compulsive-like behaviors they engaged in, although participants with DS engaged in more frequent, more intense repetitive behaviors. Compulsive-like behaviors were differentially related to adaptive and maladaptive behaviors across the MA and mental retardation groups. The results extend the "similar sequence" model of development to the construct of compulsive-like behaviors, and also suggest that some repetitive behaviors may be among the behavioral phenotype of individuals with DS.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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