MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Behavioral and emotional adjustment, family functioning, academic performance, and social relationships in children with selective mutism

2004· article· en· W3137990562 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles E. Cunningham, Angela E. McHolm, Michael H. Boyle, Sejal Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAnxietyAssertivenessSocial skillsMoodClinical psychologyAcademic achievementPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addressed four questions which parents of children with selective mutism (SM) frequently ask: (1) Is SM associated with anxiety or oppositional behavior? (2) Is SM associated with parenting and family dysfunction? (3) Will my child fail at school? and (4) Will my child make friends or be teased and bullied? In comparison to a sample of 52 community controls, 52 children with SM were more anxious, obsessive, and prone to somatic complaints. In contrast, children with SM were less oppositional and evidenced fewer attentional difficulties at school. We found no group differences in family structure, economic resources, family functioning, maternal mood difficulties, recreational activities, or social networks. While parents reported no differences in parenting strategies, children with SM were described as less cooperative in disciplinary situations. The academic (e.g., reading and math) and classroom cooperative skills of children with SM did not differ from controls. Parents and teachers reported that children with SM had significant deficits in social skills. Though teachers and parents rated children with SM as less socially assertive, neither teachers nor parents reported that children with SM were victimized more frequently by peers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations112
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Psychology and PsychiatrySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207