Age‐related changes in the effects of stress in pregnancy on infant motor development by maternal report: The Queensland Flood Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the effects of a natural disaster (a sudden onset flood) as a stressor in pregnancy on infant fine and gross motor development at 2, 6, and 16 months of age. Whether the timing of the stressor in pregnancy or sex of the infant moderated the impact of the prenatal maternal stress on motor development was also explored. Mothers' objective experiences of the flood, emotional reactions and distress, and their cognitive appraisal of the event were assessed retrospectively. Infants' fine and gross motor skills were assessed with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, and results showed age-related changes in the effects of prenatal maternal stress on these domains. At 2 months, higher levels of prenatal maternal stress was positively related to infant motor development, yet at 6 and 16 months of age there was a negative association, particularly if flood exposure occurred later in pregnancy and if mothers had negative cognitive appraisals of the event. Results also showed differential effects of the maternal stress responses to the floods on infants' fine and gross motor development at each age and that infant sex did not buffer these effects. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dev Psychobiol 58: 640-659, 2016.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".