Home environment opportunities and motor development of infants in the first year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: The home environment is a fundamental agent for infant development in the first year of life. Objective: To evaluate the opportunities for environmental stimulation and the motor development of infants at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of age and determine the association between these opportunities and the parents’ schooling and economic levels, at each age studied. Methods: This is a longitudinal study using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) to assess motor development, the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development - Infant Scale (AHEMD-IS) questionnaire to assess the stimulation opportunities at home, and the Brazilian Association of Research Companies (ABEP) questionnaire to classify the economic level of the families. The association between opportunities for environmental stimulation and schooling and economic levels was determined by the chi-squared test. Results: Thirty-seven infants participated, 54.1% of whom were boys. At 3 months of age, the opportunities for environmental stimulation were unsatisfactory, while at 6, 9, and 12 months satisfactory opportunities predominated. Three infants scored below 10% on the AIMS at 3 months of age, indicating delayed motor development. There was a significant association between economic level and total AHEMD-IS score (p = 0.031), and the toy dimension for gross (p = 0.016) and fine (p = 0.043) motor skills. Conclusion: The infants’ home environment did not provide sufficient opportunities for stimulation in the first months, but improved during the first year. Motor development was considered delayed for three infants, but was suitable in subsequent evaluations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".