MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086747536 · doi:10.2466/10.25.pms.117x30z2

Pilot Study on Infant Swimming Classes and Early Motor Development

2013· article· en· W2086747536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jorge A. B. de S. Dias, E. de J. Manoel, Roberta Bolzani de Miranda Dias, Victor Hugo Alves Okazaki

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotor skillPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) scores were examined before and after four months of swimming classes in 12 babies (ages 7 to 9 mo.) assigned to Experimental (n = 6) and Control (n = 6) groups matched on age and developmental status. Infants from both groups improved their developmental status from pre- to post-test; the Experimental group improved on mean percentile rank. The sample size and the discriminative power of the AIMS do not allow conclusive judgments on these group differences, hence on the effect of infant swimming classes. Nevertheless, a number of recommendations are made for future studies on the effect of swimming classes on infant 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207