Validation of the Canadian norms for the Alberta In fant Motor Scale for infants in a South African region aged four to twelve months; a Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is a norm referenced,performance based, observational tool that assesses motor developmentin infants from birth up to the age of eighteen months. The AIMS has beenwidely used by researchers and clinicians around the world, but only afew attempts were made to validate the Canadian norms for infants residingoutside Canada.The purpose of the study was to validate the Canadian norms of the AIMSfor infants within the Cape Metropolitan region, South Africa.A longitudinal study was conducted using the AIMS to assess the gross motordevelopment of 67 healthy full term infants at 4, 8 and 12 months respectively.At 4 months the mean percentile ranking was significantly higher than the Canadian norm (p=0.01), while no statisticalsignificant differences were found at 8 and 12 months of age.The AIMS is a valid assessment tool for healthy infants aged 8 and 12 months within the Cape Metropole, SouthAfrica. The infants at four months of age scored higher than the Canadian norm. Further validation which incorporatelarger, random samples are required to enable generalisation of the findings for the South African infant population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".