MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130109699 · doi:10.1002/dev.20428

Development of role‐differentiated bimanual manipulation during the infant's first year

2010· article· en· W2130109699 on OpenAlexaff
Marliese Kimmerle, Claudio L. Ferre, Kathleen A. Kotwica, George F. Michel

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsIntentionalityPsychologyDuration (music)Developmental psychologyTask (project management)Motor skillCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Role-differentiated bimanual manipulation (RDBM) is a complementary movement of both hands that requires differentiation between actions of the hands. Previous research showed that RDBM can be observed in infants as early as 7 months. However, RDBM could be considered a skill only when its frequency, duration, and use is appropriate for the type of manual task, and there is some evidence of intentionality in use. Twenty-four normally developing infants were studied longitudinally at 7, 9, 11, and 13 months to assess the frequency and duration of five clearly different types of RDBM with three "single-part" and three "two-part" toys as they emerge during development. Also, the sequences of actions that lead to RDBM were examined for evidence of "intentionality." The results show that although the each type of RDBM appears early in infancy, RDBM only begins to exhibit the characters of a skill by 13 months. Moreover, the type of toy influences not only the likelihood of eliciting role differentiation, but also the type of RDBM behavior and the organization of the sequence of actions that lead to RDBM. Some useful criteria for defining an infant sensorimotor skill are provided in discussion.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207