Desenvolvimento motor de lactentes que frequentam e não frequentam creches públicas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparar o desenvolvimento motor de lactentes que frequentam e nao frequentam creches no primeiro ano de vida. Metodo: O presente estudo e do tipo corte transversal e descritivo. Foi realizado a aplicacao de questionario em duas creches publicas e na Unidade de Saude do mesmo territorio para caracterizacao da amostra e analise da frequencia de estimulos realizados com as criancas. Por fim, foi aplicada a escala Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) para avaliar o desenvolvimento motor. Resultados: As criancas que frequentam creches nao apresentaram atrasos no seu desenvolvimento quando comparadas com as que nao frequentam creches. Conclusao: Conclui-se que a qualidade do ambiente em que a crianca esta inserida interfere no desenvolvimento motor infantil, nesse aspecto o ambiente influencia diretamente no DNPM. O presente estudo detectou atraso no DNPM em criancas no primeiro ano de vida em que nao frequentam creches publicas. Verificado-se que lactentes que frequentam creches publicas tem uma vantagem no seu desenvolvimento motor.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".