MOTOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT PREDICTORS OF INFANTS OF ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS MOTHERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the impact of environmental factors and daily tasks for the infant development which the adolescent mother is exposed. Therefore the present study was to identify associations and predictors of motor and cognitive development of infants of adolescent and adult mothers. Participated 40 babies aged between 0 and 18 months, 20 babies in each group -adolescent and adult mothers. Alberta Motor Infant Scale, Bayley Scale of Infant Development; Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development, Knowledge of Infant Development and Daily Activities of Infant was used for assessments. A strong association between motor skills and cognition (r = 0.88) in both groups was observed. The predictors of motor development in the adolescent mother group were paternal age, home space, the mother does not work outside the home, parents' educational level, number of toys and adults in the household, parenting practices and knowledge of parents The predictors of cognitive development were parents living together, the amount of rooms in the residence and parenting practices. In the adult mother group, the predictors of motor development were the cognitive development, caesarean birth, parents living together, amount of rooms in the residence and parenting practices. As predictors of cognitive development, remained in the regression model the motor development, number of days in the ICU, number of rooms in the residence and parental practice. Conclusions: The interdependence between cognition and motor skills, family and residence characteristics, and parenting practices were the main determinants of infant trajectory.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".