MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139837520 · doi:10.1002/mrdd.20052

A comparison of developmental assessments of the newborn and young infant

2005· review· en· W2139837520 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annette Majnemer, Laurie Snider

Bibliographic record

VenueMental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMotor skillInfant developmentDevelopmental psychologyPediatricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonatal neurobehavioral assessments describe a newborn's spontaneous behavioural repertoire and observable responses to environmental stimuli. Infant developmental assessments document the range of developmental skills that emerge and develop over the first years of life. This review highlights two neonatal assessments (Einstein Neonatal Neurobehavioral Assessment Scale, Neurobehavioral Assessment of the Preterm Infant) and two infant assessments (Alberta Infant Motor Scale, Test of Infant Motor Performance). A general description of these tests is followed by their content and psychometric properties. These standardized tests of neurologic integrity are useful in characterizing current developmental status and in monitoring change in performance over time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations65
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research ReviewsSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207