Motor acquisition rate in Brazilian infants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it