Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To examine the interrater and intrarater reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale(AIMS) when it was used in normal full-term infants in Beijing,China.Method:Forty-five normal full-term infants including 26 boys and 19 girls lived in Beijing,with the average age(6.89±2.97)months(from 4 to 12.5 months), were admitted to this investigation.Twenty-three infants were younger than 6 months and twenty-two infants were older than 6 months.Three evaluators(evaluator A,B,C)were admitted to this investigation.In the interrater reliability study,evaluator A administered the AIMS to the infants and videotaped their performance,then evaluators B,C scored the performance in the videos independently to examine the interrater reliability.After at least one month,evaluators B,C rescored the performance with the videos again to examine the intrarater reliability.Intraclass correlation coefficients(ICCs)were calculated to examine the reliability.Result:In the interrater reliability study, total ICC=0.995,6 months group ICC=0.903,6 months group ICC=0.974.In the intrarater reliability study,total ICCs=0.997-0.999,6 months group ICCs=0.892-0.972,6 months group ICCs=0.987-0.998.Conclusion:The results suggested that when AIMS was used to evaluate the motor development of the normal full-term infants in Beijing,China,its reliability was high.
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 | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".