Motor acquisition rate in Brazilian infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study used the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) with the aim of characterizing motor acquisition rate in 70 healthy 0–6‐month‐old Brazilian infants, as well as comparing both emergence (initial age) and establishment (final age) of each skill between the study sample and the AIMS normative data. New motor skills were continuously acquired from 0 to 6 months of age by the Brazilian infants, but their acquisition rate was non‐linear. When compared to the AIMS sample, Brazilian infants achieved lower percentiles, and their initial age to acquire skills requiring greater antigravity demand was higher. In contrast, Brazilian infants stopped exhibiting primitive patterns earlier, and their final age to acquire antigravity skills was lower. These differences in motor development are suggested to be a consequence of different parental practices and not necessarily indicate motor delay. Thus, the AIMS normative values should be adapted to cultural particularities so as to avoid that infants are misclassified as at risk for motor delay. Furthermore, an adequate assessment of motor development should consider not only the age at which a skill is emerged, but also the age at which such a skill is established in the infant's motor repertoire. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".