MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W175206441 · doi:10.1093/pch/15.3.153

The importance of touch in development

2010· article· en· W175206441 on OpenAlexaff
Evan L. Ardiel, Catharine H. Rankin

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLickingStimulationNeuroscienceSensory stimulation therapyFacilitationBiologyCaenorhabditis elegansSensory systemPhysiologyPhysical StimulationMaternal deprivationSensory deprivationPsychologyMedicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developmental delay is common in children deprived of normal sensory stimulation - for example, in premature neonates and some institutionalized children. Touch has emerged as an important modality for the facilitation of growth and development; positive effects of supplemental mechanosensory stimulation have been demonstrated in a wide range of organisms, from worm larvae to rat pups to human infants. Animal models are being used to elucidate the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying these effects. In rats, the amount of maternal licking received as a pup has a profound impact on the behaviour and physiology of the adult; in the microscopic roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans, physical interactions with other worms promote growth and increase adult responsiveness to mechanosensory stimuli. By understanding the underlying mechanisms, as well as the timing and degree of stimulation required to fully reverse the effects of early childhood deprivation, strategies can be developed to best help those in need.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.336
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations138
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207