Alberta infant motor scale in Brazilian research: a bibliometric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Alberta infant motor scale (AIMS) is an instrument for assessing the gross motor development of newborns, aged 0-18 months. This study aimed to summarize the Brazilian studies that used the AIMS and identify their objectives to know the main uses of the scale for professionals interested in child motor development. This is a bibliometric study on SciELO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The searched keywords were “Alberta infant motor scale” and “Brazil,” with their equivalents in Portuguese and united by “AND.” Inclusion criteria were: use of AIMS with children aged 0-18 months carried out in Brazil. The variables database, journal, year of publication, language, region of the institution linked to the authors, and type of study were analyzed in a descriptive quantitative manner. Content analysis was performed on the objectives described in the articles. In total, 79 articles were included and most of them had a cross-sectional design and were linked to institutions in the South and Southeast regions. Furthermore, most studies were from the last 10 years and in English. The journal Fisioterapia e Pesquisa was the Brazilian journal that most published studies of the sample. The analyzed objectives were distributed into six word classes, with two large groups: psychometric validity (19.1%) and evaluative studies (80.9%). The latter considered the various child populations analyzed. We presented studies that used the AIMS to evaluate the motor development of Brazilian children, reinforcing the importance of this instrument in the national context and also encouraging its use.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.018 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.170 | 0.216 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".