Comparisons Among Tools, Surface Orientation, and Pencil Grasp for Children 23 Months of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether writing tool type and angle of writing surface affect grasp. METHOD: Fifty-one children 23 to 24 months of age who were typically developing drew with a primary marker, colored pencil, and small piece of crayon on a table and an easel. The marker and pencil were presented pointing left, right, and toward the child. The order of writing tool presentation was counterbalanced. Grasps were scored with a 5-point rating system and analyzed with dependent t tests. RESULTS: Children used a more mature grasp when drawing with a piece of crayon than with a pencil. No difference in grasp maturity was found when using a pencil compared with a marker. A more mature grasp when drawing on the easel compared with the table was used with the crayon but not with the marker or pencil. CONCLUSION: Results imply that a short writing tool combined with a vertical surface can influence the grasp of young children.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".