Teacher Behaviors Toward Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Predict Peers' Initial Liking and Disliking Impressions in a Summer Camp Setting
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
Psychological studies traditionally focus on problem behaviors and clinical diagnoses of children to explain their liking and disliking by peers. Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), in particular, often display problem behaviors resulting in their social impairment. However, adults' behaviors toward a child are an understudied factor that may also affect the impressions that peers form about that child. Participants were 137 previously unacquainted children ages 6.8–9.8 (24 with ADHD and 113 typically developing children) in a 2-week summer day program, along with their camp teachers. Data were analyzed via longitudinal social network analyses that controlled for children's ADHD diagnostic status and disruptive and internalizing behaviors. Results suggested that camp teachers' observed highlighting of children's personal strengths predicted these children receiving more liking nominations from peers and, for children with ADHD, fewer disliking nominations over the course of camp. Camp teachers' highlighting of behavioral compliance was not associated with peers' impressions of children. Camp teachers' public correction of children predicted these children's receipt of fewer liking nominations, among children with low disruptive behavior. Camp teachers' discreet corrections did not show this effect. Specific adult behaviors toward children, when displayed in front of peers, may influence peers' liking and disliking impressions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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