MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386955894 · doi:10.1097/pep.0000000000001040

The Head Control Scale: Responsiveness and Concurrent Validity With the Alberta Infant Motor Scale

2023· article· en· W4386955894 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jodi Thomas, Elaine L. Rosen, Helene M. Dumas

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Physical Therapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcurrent validityScale (ratio)PsychologyPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the Head Control Scale's (HCS's) responsiveness and concurrent validity with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). METHODS: The HCS and the AIMS were administered to 50 infants and young children. Thirty children were reevaluated at hospital discharge or at 18 months of age. RESULTS: A statistically significant positive change was noted in mean score from the initial HCS assessment to the second assessment for total score and all position scores. Concurrent validity between HCS and AIMS total scores was excellent. CONCLUSION: Responsiveness to changes in head control and concurrent validity with the AIMS were established, supporting HCS use in clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Physical TherapySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207