The Development of Opposition-Defiance During Toddlerhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is now emerging epidemiological evidence that a substantial proportion of toddlers in the general population may be experiencing a significant opposition-defiance problem before 2 years of age. This article describes the continuity and discontinuity in boys' and girls' opposition-defiance statuses during toddlerhood. METHOD: Data came from The Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, a survey of a representative birth cohort of children from the Canadian province of Québec. A time-specific latent variables (Markov) model was used to estimate the proportion of toddlers who cease or start to exhibit oppositional-defiant behaviors (ODBs) on a frequent basis between 17 and 29 months of age and to test for gender differences therein. RESULTS: A majority of toddlers who had exhibited ODBs on a frequent basis at 17 months of age were still doing so 1 year later. Also, a majority of toddlers who did exhibit ODBs on a frequent basis at 29 months of age had done so 1 year earlier. The results also show that there are more toddlers who start than stop exhibiting ODBs on a frequent basis during this period. Further, the continuity and discontinuity in toddlers' opposition-defiance statuses during this period did not vary between boys and girls, suggesting that gender differences in opposition-defiance have not yet emerged by the second half of the third year of life. CONCLUSION: The predictive accuracy of early opposition-defiance is very good, with a substantial proportion of toddlers experiencing a significant opposition-defiance problem throughout toddlerhood.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".