Executive Function and Attention in Children Born Prematurely
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim - The aim of this study is to measure the abilities of premature school-aged children in tasks of attention, working memory and executive functioning in order to determine if premature newborns are more at risk to develop delays compared to children born at term.
 Method - The sampling will be based on a previous study where five school-age premature children from Northern Ontario will be assessed using standardized tests. Each parent will be given a standardized questionnaire designed to measure the executive functioning of his or her child. The results will be then compared to those of a control group born at term without any neonatal complications. Participants will be matched according to gender, age, language status and socio-economic status. Preliminary analysis has shown that premature infants have reduced performance in tasks such as attention and executive functioning (inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility). The influence of gestational age, birth weight and socio-economic status will be explained.
 Importance of the Study - Premature children are more vulnerable to developmental and behavioural delays (Taheri, Goudarzi, Shariat, Nariman, & Martin, 2017). Several studies have shown that delays in executive functions are associated with lower academic achievement (Hüning et al., 2017). This study will help us determine the nature of the impact on non-language skills in premature infants. Preliminary results will allow us to better understand the impact of prematurity on the development of attention and executive functioning (inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility), as it relates to language.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".