Bibliographic record
Abstract
no post-natal infant health conditions, age at assessment of 3 to 12 months, Canadian residency, and both parents' selfreported ethnic background as Asian or European.Methods: The Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT), a quick, reliable, and valid screening tool, was used to assess infant neuromotor development.Data were obtained from three sources: (1) infants who participated in the 2003 HINT normative study;(2) infants who participated in an ongoing identification of neuromotor delays study; and (3) additional infants of Asian background recruited to increase the size of that group.Results: Factorial analysis of variance of the primary hypothesis indicated that there were no differences in motor development between infants of Asian and European backgrounds.Analysis of the secondary hypotheses indicated no difference in motor development based on sex or maternal education, the latter serving as an indicator of socioeconomic status.Conclusions/Significance: Although specific limitations must be considered, the results of this study clearly indicate no difference in the motor development of Canadian infants of Asian and European ethnic backgrounds.Practitioners can be confident in using the HINT for detecting motor delay in infants of both Asian and European ethnic groups.These findings will provide practitioners with much needed information to help in making sound decisions when administering screening tools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.637 | 0.403 |
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".