The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRAGT. This article describes a new measure for studying inhibitory control, the stop signal paradigm, and the race model of inhibitory control of action (Logan & Cowan, 1984) on which it is based. This measure and model permit distinction and measurement of various processes which determine whether or not an action can be inhibited. Three studies are described that find a deficit in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in inhibitory control of an ongoing action and in the processes involved in the reengagement of an alternative action following inhibition of an ongoing action. No evidence of deficient attentional capacity was found in ADHD that could account for these deficits. These deficits were most pronounced in children who had ADHD according to reports of both parent and teacher (pervasive ADHD) compared to those whose ADHD was reported by either parent or teacher but not both. No deficit was evident in children with conduct disorder (CD) or in those with a combined presentation of ADHD and CD despite the fact that these groups were characterized by clinical impulsiveness. The article discusses the implications of these findings for models of the relationship of cognitive deficit and behavior. The concept of impulsiveness is central to explanations of various problems of childhood including academic difficulties (Blackman & Goldstein, 1982; Walker, 1985), poor
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.587 | 0.190 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".