Is Maternal Education Related to Infant Motor Development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: Because results of previous studies were inconclusive, our purpose was to examine the relationship between maternal education and infant neuromotor development in infants who are healthy and born at term. Method: Secondary analysis of normative data derived through administration of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) to 412 Canadian infants was conducted. Infants were recruited from community-based infant programs, childcare facilities, and homes in five Canadian provinces. Inclusion criteria included: term birth (38–42 weeks), birth weight ≥2500 g, and no history of major prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal medical complications or maternal complications. Infants encompassed Canadian ethnic diversity as well as equal gender distribution at each of 10 monthly age intervals. Results: The analysis demonstrated that maternal education was only minimally associated with infant neuromotor development as measured by HINT total scores. Conclusions: Our results confirmed other researchers’ findings of no association between maternal education and infant motor development. The results of this secondary analysis of normative data collected using the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test revealed no relationship between the level of maternal education and infants’ motor development.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".