Trajectories of internalizing problems during the transition to adolescence in children with and without conduct problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with conduct problems are at greater risk for internalizing problems. The objectives of this study were to (1) examine trajectories of internalizing problems among children with and without clinically significant conduct problems during the transition to adolescence; and (2) identify how academic achievement, peer rejection, parent socioeconomic status, maternal distress, parental warmth, child temperament, and receptive verbal functioning explained differences between the two groups. Children with conduct problems ( N = 388, 45% girls) and a comparison sample without conduct problems ( N = 299, 52% girls) were recruited from Quebec, Canada, when they were between the ages of 7 and 10 years, and were followed across 4 years. Mothers and teachers provided information on internalizing problems each year. Having clinically significant conduct problems was associated with higher initial levels of internalizing problems according to mothers and teachers, but not with changes in internalizing problems over time. With regards to teacher ratings, academic achievement, peer rejection, and negative emotionality partially explained differences in internalizing problems for youth with and without conduct problems. For mother ratings, maternal distress, negative emotionality, and peer rejection completely explained the association for girls, and partially explained the association for boys. Findings supported a multi-rater approach for understanding risk for internalizing problems among children with and without conduct problems. In particular, they highlight the importance of differences across context for understanding factors associated with vulnerability to internalizing problems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".