Terminology used in research reports of developmental coordination disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic search was performed of all articles from January 1995 to December 2005 published in peer‐reviewed journals on children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Criteria were applied to ensure that articles included DCD so 319 articles were included in the analysis. Since the publication of a systematic search conducted in 1994, the number of publications in this field has greatly increased across countries and disciplines. The term DCD was used in 52.7% of the articles. Other terms were used less frequently: clumsy children (7.2%), developmental dyspraxia (3.5%), handwriting problems (3.1%), hand‐eye coordination problems (2.8%), sensory integration dysfunction (2.5%), deficits in attention, motor control, and perception (2.5%), minor neurological dysfunction (2.2%), and several other scattered terms (23.5%). The data indicated that progress has been made in the usage of the term DCD, but a standardized approach has not yet been achieved. Without consistent use of the term DCD, there is limited communication of research results internationally, slowed progress in understanding the condition, and limited development of intervention and management programmes for children with DCD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".