Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disordered and Control Boys' Responses to Social Success and Failure
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 behavioral, self-evaluative, and attributional responses of 120 boys with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and 65 control boys to social success and failure were examined using a dyadic, laboratory get-acquainted task employing child confederates. Objective coders rated boys with ADHD as less socially effective than controls in their interactions, but also as less frustrated and helpless. In terms of self-evaluations, ADHD boys overwhelmingly rated their own performance more favorably than did controls and in some instances, these differences were more apparent following failure. The attributional pattern of ADHD and control boys differed in that ADHD boys were more likely than controls to attribute success to external, uncontrollable factors such as task ease and being lucky; controls, on the other hand, were more likely than ADHD boys to attribute initial failure to not having tried hard enough. Results are discussed in the context of existing literature documenting a positive illusory bias in ADHD boys' self-perceptions.
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 | 0.001 | 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