Intralimb Coordination in Children With and Without Developmental Coordination Disorder in One-Handed Catching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a gap in the literature in regard to analysis of intralimb coordination exhibited by children with (n = 10) and without developmental coordination disorder (DCD; n = 9) in 1-handed catching. The functional data showed that children without DCD (M age = 10.6 years, SD = 1.08 years) were nearly perfect. Children with DCD (M age = 11.0 years, SD = 1.16 years) caught significantly fewer balls, and this was despite the fact that not all of them had difficulties organizing their actions at intralimb level of coordination. The analysis of the coinciding actions revealed differences at the distal (elbow-wrist relations), but not at the proximal joints where both groups exhibited decoupling between the shoulder and elbow joints. Large variability within the groups also suggested that the notion of universal coordinative tendencies at intralimb level of coordination has to be treated with caution. This is particularly true for children with DCD as different subgroups emerged in the present sample.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".