Friendship Characteristics of Children With ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explored the friendship characteristics of 8 to 12 year old children with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Friendship characteristics included number of nominated and corroborated friends, duration of friendships, amount of contact with friends, and the proportion of friends with learning and behavioral problems. METHOD: The sample comprised 92 children, 50 with a diagnosis of ADHD and 42 comparison children. RESULT: While children with ADHD did not differ from comparison children in the number of friends they nominated, parents and teachers of children with ADHD were less likely to corroborate that these friendships existed. The friendships of children with ADHD were also shorter in duration. While children with ADHD were indistinguishable from comparison children with regards to the amount of telephone contact with friends, they spent less time with friends outside of school than comparison children. Children with ADHD had a higher proportion of friends with learning and behavior problems. CONCLUSION: While children with ADHD differ from comparison children in the above friendship characteristics, it is promising that they still fall within the average range for the number of corroborated friendships and they demonstrate adequate stability in their friendships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".