Hand preference and hand performance: Cross-sectional developmental trends and family resemblance in degree of laterality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first aim of the study was to compare developmental trends in the degree of laterality (independent of direction) observed in two handedness tasks. The second aim was to assess family resemblance in the degree of laterality using the same two tasks. The sample was comprised of 186 left-handers and 302 right-handers aged from 6 to 66. Some of the sample were members of the same families. Bishop's card-reaching task was used to assess hand preference, and Annett's peg-moving task to assess manual performance. For the card-reaching task, children aged 7 to 10/11 recorded more midline crossings than the other age groups (both younger and older). No general age-related trend was observed for the Annett pegboard. For the card-reaching task, family resemblance was very low and not significant. The degree of laterality, assessed with the peg-moving task, showed a small but significant resemblance in father-offspring pairs (sons and daughters). Putative involvement of a maternally suppressed gene on chromosome 2p12 and of the androgen receptor was discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".