MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W173424833 · doi:10.1177/070674370805301009

Left-Handedness and Developmental Coordination Disorder

2008· article· en· W173424833 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John Cairney, Louis A. Schmidt, Scott Veldhuizen, Paul Kurdyak, John Hay, Brent E. Faught

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercentilePsychologyPercentile rankMovement assessmentLateralization of brain functionMotor coordinationTest (biology)Intelligence quotientAudiologyMotor skillDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePediatricsCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of left-handedness in a sample of children screened for developmental coordination disorder (DCD). METHOD: Using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Short Form (BOTMP-SF), 2297 children were screened with 128 scoring at or below the fifth percentile and identified as probable cases of DCD. Using the Movement-ABC (M-ABC) and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, 30 children (24 from the DCD group, and 6 who scored above the cut-off) were randomly selected for further assessment. RESULTS: Among the students who had previously scored at or below the fifth percentile on the BOTMP-SF, 24 were evaluated. Among the 19 children who met diagnostic criteria for DCD (IQ > 70, M-ABC < 16th percentile), 37% (n = 9) were left-handed. Among children who scored at or below the fifth percentile of the M-ABC, 46% were left-handed (6/13). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of left-handedness in children with DCD suggests a possible role for cerebral lateralization in motor coordination problems.

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 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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207