MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Infant development and parents’ perceptions associated with use of the harris infant neuromotor test

2010· article· en· W1488949701 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRev Rene · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsCanadian Physiotherapy AssociationUniversity of Victoria
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsTest (biology)PerceptionMedicinePortuguesePediatricsInfant developmentDescriptive statisticsPsychologyDemographyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work aimed to identify the socio-economic, health, and educational profiles of parents, as well as their perceptions of their infants’ motor development in the first year of life. This descriptive study was carried out from November/2008 to February/2009. Participants in the study were 50 infants and 50 parents/guardians, in Fortaleza-Brazil. We used the Portuguese version of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) with infants ranging in age from 3 months to 11 months and 20 days. Twenty-six infants (52%) were boys. The mean age of the mothers was 24.5 years. Of the caregivers, 23 (46%) lived in stablemarital relationships, Sixteen (32%) had finished secondary education, and 27 (54%) of the families had incomes between R$ 464,72 (US$202.05) and R$ 929,44 (US$404.10). Participating caregivers were generally accurate in their own perceptions of their children’s development when compared to the numeric HINT scores assessed by nurses trained in infant development. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15253/2175-6783.2010011esp000014

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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