Using hand performance measures to predict handedness
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
Handedness is defined by the individual's preference to use one hand predominately for unimanual tasks and the ability to perform these tasks more efficiently with one hand (Corey, Hurley, & Foundas, 2001). It is important to use performance variables to measure handedness because they are more objective than traditional hand preference questionnaires (Bryden, Pryde, & Roy, 2000a). The current study develops a predictive model of handedness as measured by the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire (WHQ) using several performance indicators of handedness. A total of 120 individuals (60 right-handers and 60 left-handers) were asked to complete four performance-based tasks: the Grooved Pegboard (GP), the Annett pegboard (AP), finger tapping (FT), and grip strength (GS) as well as an observational measure of preference, the Wathand Box Test (WBT). Backward linear regression analysis showed that the Wathand Box measure and the laterality quotients for several performance measures (GP place, AP, and FT) combined to act as the most accurate predictors of hand preference. The predictive model of handedness developed is as follows: WHQ = -2.760- - 0.667(GP place) + 0.809(FT) + 0.234(WBT) - 0.748(AP) with an explained variance of 0.836. These results illustrate, as Corey et al. (2001) suggested, that the best predictive model of handedness combines preference measures and several performance measures that tap into different elements of motor performance. By developing this model, it is possible to get an accurate measure of handedness using objective measures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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