Infant motor development and equipment use in the home
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
Forty-three mother-infant dyads were recruited to determine the relationship between both total equipment use and the use of individual pieces of equipment and infant motor development. At 8 months of age, total and individual equipment use was determined by parental survey and infant motor development was assessed using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Statistically significant correlations were found for the relationships between total equipment use and infant motor development (r = -0.50, P = 0.001) and individual pieces of equipment [exersaucer (r = -0.58, P = 0.001), highchair (r = -0.32, P = 0.04), and infant seat (r = -0.32, P = 0.03)] and infant motor development. These findings suggest that infants who have high equipment use tend to score lower on infant motor development or that infants who have low equipment use tend to score higher on infant motor development. Limitations of this cross-sectional study make it difficult to determine causality between these constructs. If equipment use is found to be causally related to infant motor development and predictive of later motor development in a future prospective study, parental education emphasizing the moderate use of equipment within the home environment might be warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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