Infant development and parents’ perceptions associated with use of the harris infant neuromotor test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".