Psychopathology among Emerging Adults with Learning Disabilities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with learning disabilities (LDs) are more likely to have a mental illness, yet few studies explore this association in emerging adulthood, a developmental period with an increased risk for mental illness. The purpose of the current study was to investigate psychological distress in emerging adults (15–29 years) with and without LDs. The 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey—Mental Health was used (n = 5630), and multiple and logistic regression models with survey weights were computed. Adjusting for demographic, psychosocial, and health covariates, there was no evidence for significant differences in psychological distress among emerging adults with vs. without LDs. However, age and sex were significant effect modifiers. Among emerging adults with LDs, both males (OR = 2.39 [1.01, 5.67]) and those aged 25–29 years (OR = 3.87 [1.05, 14.30]) had an increased odds of clinically relevant psychological distress in comparison to those without LDs. These findings suggest a need for improved awareness and support for prevention of psychological distress among emerging adults with LDs, especially for males and those in later emerging adulthood.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".