Increasing Gross Motor Skill Through Fundamental Skill Development Program
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
The aim of this study was to examine Canadian movement program called fundamental skill development programs implemented in Indonesia to increase children’s gross motor skills. By using a quasi-experiment, the matching-only pretest-posttest control group design, the sample was divided into two groups (N = 25 to the experimental group, N = 25 to the control group). The Gross motor skills were measured using the Test of Gross Motor Development - Second Edition TGMD - 2 Ulrich (2000). The experimental group was given training for eight weeks, 1 session per week and each session lasting 60 minutes. Statistical analysis was performed using paired sample t-test and independent sample t-test. The results showed that there is an increase in gross motor skills in the experimental group with P < 0.05. Then the results of independent sample t-test by comparing the Gain score between experimental group and the control group is significant difference with P < 0.05. It can be concluded that the fundamental skill development programs significant effect on gross motor skills in the first-grade student.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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