MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404025136 · doi:10.22215/cujs.v3i1.4930

Harmony Amidst Hyperactivity: Understanding How Parent-Teacher Relationships Influence Learning Behaviours in Children with ADHD

2024· article· en· W4404025136 on OpenAlexaffabout
Arya Shafei, Maria Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton undergraduate journal of science. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmony (color)PsychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study investigated whether parent-teacher relationships mediated the relationship between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptomology and children’s learning behaviours. A sample of Canadian parents were asked to complete a questionnaire about their child and their parenting. Data collection occurred during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Spring 2021 (N = 321, Mgrade = 4.30, SDgrade = 2.98). Data were analyzed using a mediation model. Results indicated that increased ADHD symptomology was significantly associated with a heightened strain on parent-teacher relationships, which exacerbated challenges in children’s learning behaviours (b = -0.39, t(320) = -9.82, p < .001). Moreover, parent-teacher relationships partially mediated the relationship between ADHD symptomology and children’s learning behaviours (b = -8.95, t(320) = -18.13, p < .001). These findings emphasize the importance in addressing familial and educational support structures in managing the academic difficulties for youth experiencing ADHD symptomatology, and further educational achievement and opportunities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton undergraduate journal of science.Same topicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsFrench-language works237,207