Situar a hiperatividade e déficit de atenção em Portugal: dimensões sociais, históricas e éticas de um tema emergente na saúde global
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is considered one of the most frequent behavioral and neurodevelopmental problems in school-age children and adolescents, both in Portugal and worldwide. The diagnostic categorization of ADHD and the prescription of psychostimulants as its first-line treatment have been the object not only of scientific research and clinical validation, but also of controversy and social critique, especially in light of the concept of medicalization. Despite its high profile and salience in such diverse fields as education, pharmaceuticals, mental health, and public policy, a significant gap remains in the characterization of social-historical, ethical, and institutional dimensions of ADHD outside English-speaking countries. Combining historical and ethnographic research with document and media analysis, the article addresses that challenge by tracing the social trajectory of ADHD in Portugal, from the emergence of "hyperactivity" in the 1970s and 1980s to the current public and political debates on psychostimulant treatments and prescribing trends. From this interdisciplinary perspective and based on the Portuguese case study, the aim of this article is to contextualize the definition, validation, and expansion of ADHD as part of a dynamic and socially situated process in which global diagnostic and pharmaceutical systems intersect with institutional and socioeconomic contingencies, as well as local specificities and needs. More broadly, the article discusses how the case study of ADHD contributes to the development of interdisciplinary research that helps rethinking the social scope of mental health across local and global health contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".