MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1571135367 · doi:10.1002/dev.21289

Characteristics of the developing human locomotor system: Similarities to other mammals

2015· article· en· W1571135367 on OpenAlexafffund
Jaynie F. Yang, Mary Mitton, Kristin E. Musselman, Susan K. Patrick, Junichi Tajino

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRhythmDuration (music)Physical medicine and rehabilitationTreadmillPeriod (music)PsychologyGait cycleDevelopmental psychologyBiologyMedicinePhysiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similarities in the development of locomotion between young children and other mammals are explored by reanalysis of data accrued over ~18 years. Supported stepping in children was tested on a treadmill. Although the time course of development is more protracted in humans compared to other mammals, the same trends are seen. For example, the duration of the stepping cycle shortens rapidly in the first 5 months of life. Hypermetric flexion of the hip and knee during stepping is seen in children <3 mo old. Stability of the locomotor rhythm both with respect to cycle duration within a limb and coupling between limbs improves slowly. Finally, coordination between the left and right legs can be manipulated with training, indicating experience-dependent learning at a young age. The possible reasons for these remarkably similar trends in development are explored as a function of maturational time tables for neural structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207