Historical Analysis of Prevalence and Public Perception of ADHD in Adults Within International News Coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a mental health disorder characterized by the inability to focus or control impulsive, hyperactive behaviour. The research manuscript investigates how the prevalence and language use of media coverage has changed in reporting ADHD among adults. Quantitative data was obtained from news articles published from the Nexis Uni database every 5-years from 2000 to 2020. The prevalence of the articles was determined by inspecting the number of publications during each respective period. The study investigated the language use of ADHD in adults by using the ADHD Descriptive Language (ADL) scale from 1 (derogatory) to 3 (respectful). Results showed an increase in the number of news articles published within each 5-year time frame: 62, 86, 119, and 161 news articles between 2000-2005, 2005-2010, 2010-2015, and 2015-2020, respectively. Language use, determined from the ADL scale, showed a relative percent increase of 4.55%, 9.38%, and 14.6% between each period, respectively. The trend observed for the descriptive language is associated with improved public perception used for the disorder in adults. Further research is necessary to raise awareness and decrease existing prejudice regarding the prevalence and language use of adult ADHD in the media.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".