The determinants of obstacle avoidance strategies in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that by the age of 5 years, children employ similar gait patterns during unobstructed walking in comparison to adults (Berger, Altenmueller, & Dietz, 1984; Samson et al., 2011). However, it's been suggested that the capacity to use anticipatory control in order to adapt gait is immature until 9 years of age (McFadyen, Malouin, & Dumas, 2001; Berard & Vallis, 2006). When avoiding a stationary obstacle along their pathway, young adults will avoid in the direction that affords more space to their travel path (Cinelli & Warren, 2008). Despite these findings, minimal research has examined the factors that play a role in affecting avoidance direction in children. Therefore, the objectives of the study are: 1) to determine how children choose a specific avoidance direction when circumventing a stationary obstacle in their path; 2) to determine whether the presence of a visible goal affects a child's avoidance direction. Preliminary research in our lab using children aged 7-8 years found that neither object location nor presence of a goal affected the side of avoidance. These findings suggest that children tend to avoid to a preferred side regardless of obstacle position or goal visibility and avoidance strategies are not influenced by perception of space. Therefore, current and future research in our lab includes a larger age range of children, between the ages of 6-8 and 10-12 years, with the thought that children in the latter group will act similar to young adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".