Programa de Fisioterapia Aplicado no Desenvolvimento Motor de Bebês Saudáveis em Ambiente Familiar - doi: 10.4025/reveducfis.v23i1.11551
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in existing motor development of infants from parents and guidance to carers or in a program of interventional therapy in the family context.Twenty two babies have participated, divided into two groups: Intervention Group (GI) and Control Group (GC). Both groups were evaluated at the beginning and at the end of eight weeks. The GI mothers received instructions from a physical therapy program for babies and context changing guidelines at every week. The references used in this study were: scale Alberta and the AHEMD-SR questionnaire. For statistical analysis it was used the nonparametric tests of Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Mcnemar and the Correlation of Spearman. It was observed a significant motor development in GI group comparing pre and post intervention (p=0,029). The results suggest that babies stimulated correcty in the home environment develop a higher quality in motor learning.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".