Cognition and environment are predictors of infants' motor development over time
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We conducted a longitudinal investigation on the relationships among motor and cognitive development, biological aspects, maternal practices, parental knowledge, and family environments of infants. Forty-nine infants aged between 3 and 16 months participated in the study. They were evaluated through the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and the Cognitive Scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Their parents answered a questionnaire about biological factors, the Daily Activities of Infant Scale, affordances for motor development (Baby Scale) in the home environment, and the Brazilian version of the Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory. We conducted evaluations in schools for 4 months. Generalized estimating equations, Bonferroni correction, and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient were used. Significant associations were found in the (1) univariate analysis between motor and cognitive development and environmental factors (education level, income, toy availability, physical space, parental practices and knowledge, breastfeeding duration, and school frequency); (2) multivariate analyses between motor development and income, and between father's age and physical space at home. Motor and cognitive developments were concluded to depend on each other, and environmental factors were shown to be more significant in the associations rather than the biological ones, stressing the importance of home, of parental care, and of the experiences children go through along the first years of their lives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.818 | 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 it