Fundamental motor skills in the first year of school: Associations with prematurity and disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the importance of fundamental motor skill proficiency for children's participation in games, sports, and physical activity; our aim was to concurrently examine the fundamental motor skill proficiency of children living with a disability, children born prematurely, and children born full-term without a disability in their first year of school (kindergarten). Participants were 260 children (mean age = 5y9m; boys = 52%); 33 were born prematurely and 12 children lived with a disability. Motor skills were assessed during physical education using the Test of Gross Motor Development-2, and parent reports were used to indicate disability and prematurity status. The motor skill proficiency of all children was quite low; with mean percentile ranks ranging between <1st and 16th percentile for locomotor skills and the 1st and 16th percentile for object control skills. An analysis of variance showed a significant overall effect and a main effect for disability on the gross motor quotient; but there was no main effect for prematurity, nor interaction between prematurity and disability. The vast majority of the children in this study would benefit from a concentrated effort to enhance motor skills; and this was especially true for children with disabilities.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".