POSTURAL CONTROL IN CHILDREN BORN AT TERM ACCORDING TO THE ALBERTA INFANT MOTOR SCALE: COMPARISON BETWEEN SEXES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: acquisitions and changes in the motor and cognitive development of boys and girls are related not only to existing biological differences between both sexes, but also to socio-economic, cultural and family factors. Objective: to investigate the differences between sexes in the acquisition of anti-gravitational postures. Methods: the participants in this study were 638 children born at term (324 males and 314 females), from 0 to 18 months, coming from Infant Education Schools in the south of Brazil. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was used to evaluate motor performance. Results: most of the evaluated children showed normal motor performance for their age (69.7%), with nonlinear development and plateaus in postural acquisition from 15 months. There were not significant differences (p>0.05) in motor performance between boys and girls from 0 to 18 months. Conclusion: motor development was similar between the sexes in the first months of life. However, throughout childhood, sociocultural differences and parents’ practices seem to influence differently the process of motor acquisition and development of skills, since children are exposed to experiences in conformity with sex expectations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".