Building Resilience among Children and Youth with ADHD through Identifying and Developing Protective Factors in Academic, Interpersonal and Cognitive Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and youth with ADHD are a vulnerable group susceptible to adversity in wide-ranging life domains. However, many children and youth, irrespective of having ADHD become successful both academically andinterpersonally, and improve their cognition. This group can be considered as being “resilient”, that is, adapting to the adversity they may face in a positive manner. The overarching goal of this paper is to highlight domains at the academic, interpersonal and cognition levels that are indicative of resiliency among children and youth with ADHD. The secondary goal is to highlight interventions that result in promoting resiliency among this group at these levels. It is necessary for future interventions to be designed and implemented with developing the resiliency of children and youth with ADHD in mind. To achieve this, research needs to begin to identify the strengths of children and youth with ADHD to provide insight into how their strengths can compensate for their weaknesses, and to promote their resiliency leading to success academically, interpersonally and cognitively.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".