Peer and Parenting Characteristics of Boys and Girls with Subclinical Attention 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
OBJECTIVE: This study examines peer and parenting characteristics of 149 boys and girls with and without subclinical attention problems. METHOD: Multivariate analyses showed that children with attention problems had higher levels of negative peer nominations and conflict and betrayal in friendships, and their parents tended to use higher levels of negative parenting characteristics compared to comparison children. Children with subclinical attention problems also reported lower levels of positive friendship qualities, and their parents tended to use lower levels of positive parenting characteristics than comparison children. RESULTS: Beyond normative gender differences (e.g., girls reported higher rates of parental involvement than boys), no significant group by gender interactions were found. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that both girls and boys who were identified using a subclinical cutoff for attention problems have more difficulties relative to comparison peers across social domains of functioning.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it