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 OpenAlex
Annette Majnemer, Laurie Snider

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.252
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