The influence of the quality in daycare environments on children’s motor development between six to 15 months old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: to analyze the influence of the quality in the environment on children’s motor development between six to 15 months old attending early childhood education centers. Methods: a cross-sectional and analytical study addressing children’s motor development between six to 15 months old, both sexes, enrolled in nursery (0-12 months) and preschoolers (12-24 months). The Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development-Infant Scale and Alberta Infant Motor Scale were used in the Brazilian versions Results: the sample was comprised of 104 children and 30 early childhood education centers: presenting a mean age of 9.15 months, 88% attended full-time and 12% part-time schooling (mornings or afternoons). One center was classified with a low Affordances, 26 were considered Sufficient, and three were Adequate. Of the participating children, 40% presented typical motor development. The higher levels of Affordances suggest better motor development, and lower levels of suspected delayed motor development. Conclusion: the environments of early childhood education centers influence children’s motor performance, especially daily activities and the use of toys. The lower the Affordances level, more likely children are suspected of delayed motor 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".