Measuring Developmental Differences With an Age-of-Attainment Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sensitive measurement of variation in rate of attainment is an underutilized but useful indicator of individual differences in development. To assess such individuality, we used longitudinal parental diary checklists of infant attainments to estimate the ages at which ubiquitous developmental milestones like sitting and walking were reached. Parents using this diary checklist have been shown to be valid reporters of milestone attainments. Present analyses show that multiple definitions of milestone onset have high reliability as well. Babies differ considerably in their rates of development, and such individual differences in rates may be predicted from other variables with survival (event history) analysis. Ages of attainment for sustained sitting, crawling, and walking were calculated for 519 infants and predicted using 11 common covariates. Our discovery that babies of younger mothers reach these milestones sooner than those of older mothers reveals the value of an age-of-attainment (AOA) approach. A framework with a SAS program for collecting and analyzing AOA data is presented.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".