MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Desenvolvimento motor de crianças prematuras e a termo: uso da Alberta Infant Motor Scale

2011· article· pt· W2107990396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paulista de Enfermagem · 2011
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsMedicineHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJETIVOS: Comparar o desenvolvimento motor de crianças nascidas pré-termo e a termo aos quatro e seis meses de idade, aplicando a Alberta Infant Motor Scale-AIMS na versão brasileira. MÉTODOS: Estudo longitudinal, comparativo, realizado em Fortaleza-Ceará, entre novembro/ 2009 e maio/2010. amostragem por conveniência, foi constituída por 24 crianças pré-termo e 24 a termo. RESULTADOS: Nas crianças de quatro meses, verificou-se diferença estatisticamente significante na posição em pé (p=0,014) e, nas de seis meses, em todas as posições (prono, supina, sentada, em pé) e escores totais. Quanto ao percentil, aos quatro e seis meses, respectivamente, 37,5% das crianças pré-termo mostraram desempenho excelente e 54,2%, normais. CONCLUSÃO: A análise estatística do desempenho motor grosso entre os grupos de crianças estudadas mostrou diferenças no desenvolvimento e evolução dos percentis da AIMS.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.242 · 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