Are There Resilient Children with ADHD?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The adverse outcomes associated with ADHD are well known, but less is known about the minority of children with ADHD who may be flourishing despite this neurodevelopmental risk. The present multi-informant study is an initial step in this direction with the basic but unanswered question: METHOD: Reliable change analysis of the BASC-3 Resiliency subscale for a clinically evaluated sample of 206 children with and without ADHD (ages 8-13; 81 girls; 66.5% White/Non-Hispanic). RESULTS: Most children with ADHD are perceived by their parents and teachers as resilient (52.8%-59.2%), with rates that did not differ from the comorbidity-matched Non-ADHD sample. CONCLUSION: Exploratory analyses highlighted the importance of identifying factors that promote resilience for children with ADHD specifically, such that some child characteristics were promotive (associated with resilience for both groups), some were protective (associated with resilience only for children with ADHD), and some were beneficial only for children without ADHD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it