MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059713194 · doi:10.1177/1053815109336897

Motor Development in Canadian Infants of Asian and European Ethnic Origins

2009· article· en· W2059713194 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tanja A. Mayson, Catherine L. Backman, Susan R. Harris, Virginia E. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Early Intervention · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British ColumbiaSunny Hill Health Centre for Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupPsychologyTest (biology)Developmental psychologyMotor skillIntervention (counseling)Child developmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethnic origin is one factor that may influence the rate or sequence of infant motor development, interpretation of screening test results, and decisions regarding early intervention. The primary purpose of this study is to compare motor development screening test scores from infants of Asian and European ethnic origins. Using a cross-sectional design, the authors analyzed Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) scores of 335 infants of Asian and European origins. Factorial ANOVA results indicated no significant differences in test scores between infants from these two groups. Although several limitations should be considered, results of this study indicate that practitioners can be relatively confident in using the HINT to screen infants of both origins for developmental delays.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Early InterventionSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207