Motor skills assessment of canadian school boys and girls aged 6 to 12 years old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In children, physical appraisal is not only determined by physical fitness (e.g.muscular strength, maximal aerobic power, flexibility...).This type of physical quality could be substantially improved even at an advanced age.Nevertheless, other physical abilities as coordination, balance and reaction time in particular, are markedly less sensible to training when adolescent or adult stage is reach.Therefore, it is very important to detect as soon as possible, any lack of motor skills that can affect the normal course of children development (e.g. in general, before 13 years old).Thus, this standardized tests battery propose to measure and quantify the level of motor skills development in children aged between 6 to 12 years old.The 5 main factors assess are: A. Limbs speed ; B. Agility ; C. Static and dynamic balance ; D. Reaction time; E. Coordination.Unfortunately, no normative standards exist for the Canadian population for motor skill tests.Recently, a group of researchers from UQAC, UQAM and University of Moncton have administered this test battery to more than 3000 kids from the province of Quebec and New Brunswick.This scientific project allowed for the first time, to determine the motor skills profile of Canadian children and then, to produce normative standards based on age and gender.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".