Crack and motor development of babies living in an assistance shelter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The baby motor development happens naturally with the complex interaction of the body, performing tasks in its context. When the body suffers negative external influence, such as the use of drugs by the mother during pregnancy, and develops in an environment different from home, such as shelters, it is questionable how the motor development would be. Objective: To evaluate the motor development of babies living in welfare shelters, children of crack users during pregnancy; to verify if there is an association of motor delay in these babies; and to describe the environment in which they were inserted. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study, with a convenience sample. There were 29 babies between three and 16 months old. Twenty-two of them were exposed to crack during pregnancy (Crack Group) and the remaining seven were not (Non-Crack Group). All were living in a specific shelter. To assess broad motor development, the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was used. The Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development - Infant Scale (AHEMD-IS) was used to assess home environment opportunities. Results: In the crack group, the developmental delay was confirmed in 36.4% cases and suspected in 18.2%. Most babies in the crack group were typical (45.5%). There was no statistically significant association between crack group and developmental delay, nor with age and sex. Conclusion: The development of babies in the crack group was similar to the non-crack group and the opportunities in the environment were reasonable for the baby development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".