The Development of the Child with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Chapter 2 on the characteristics of the ADHD child, I discussed the problems a child with ADHD encounters, and how these change as he grows. I also mentioned that the sequence of problems is not inevitable, and that may cause ADHD children to grow out of their problems as they become older. An obvious and reasonable question that parents might ask is what the fate of their ADHD child will be. Ten years ago we did not know. As I will explain, this question is now easier to answer. Because of new clinical data, we are obtaining a picture of the changes in the condition over time. The information comes from two sources. The first consists of studies of ADHD children who were followed from childhood into adolescence. We are beginning to obtain information about the adult outcome of ADHD children from a second source-two scientific studies, started about fifteen years ago, that systematically followed and compared a group of ADHD children with a group of non-ADHD children and evaluated them into their mid-twenties. These two studies, one conducted in New York City and the other in Montreal, are described later in this chapter.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".