A developmental analysis of the relationship between hand preference and performance: II. A performance-based method of measuring hand preference in children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study describes a performance-based method of measuring hand preference in children. Three aspects of handedness were considered to be important in developing the paradigm (a) overall hand preference across a number of tasks, (b) consistency of hand use and, (c) the use of the preferred hand in a bimanual task. The new paradigm, termed the WatHand Box Test (WBT), requires participants to perform a variety of unimanual tasks such as, using a hammer, tossing a ball, and opening a lock with a key. To determine the validity of the WBT and examine the developmental trends in hand preference, eighty right-handed children and adults (ages 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 18-24 years) performed the WBT. First, the WBT was found to correlate significantly with scores on a standard hand preference questionnaire for the adults. As well, significant developmental trends were noted in hand preference as measured by the WBT. Most specifically, three- and four-year-olds had significantly lower scores on the WBT indicating a less stable pattern of hand preference than in the other three age groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".