MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767787586 · doi:10.5507/euj.2017.001

Fundamental motor skills in the first year of school: Associations with prematurity and disability

2017· article· en· W2767787586 on OpenAlexaff
Viviene A. Temple, Danielle R. S. Guerra Guerra, Lizette Larocque, Jeff R. Crane, Erin Sloan, Lynneth Stuart-Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Adapted Physical Activity · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsIsland HealthUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMotor skill

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Adapted Physical ActivitySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207