Friendships of Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether adolescents with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) differ regarding their friendships. The sample comprised 107 adolescents (59 ADHD, 48 typically developing comparison), ages 13 to 18 years. Adolescents and their parents completed questionnaires that measured the number and duration of the adolescents’ friendships, the frequency of contact they had with their friends, and the characteristics of their friends. Adolescents with and without ADHD did not differ in the number of friends they nominated, the duration of their friendships, and the frequency of contact with friends. Adolescents with ADHD were more likely to have friends who were younger or older by two or more years and close friends with behavior problems than comparison adolescents. Girls with ADHD had fewer of their friendships corroborated by parents than girls without ADHD, and fewer of their best friends attending their school. Only girls with ADHD had friends whom they initially met online.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".