Quality of life and neuropsychomotor development of infants between 4-18 months in daycare center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quality of Life (QoL) is a predictor of development depending on multiple factors, being the QoL of infants still little studied, especially in permanent settings such as infants educational center or daycare centers. Correlate quality of life with age, family income and the neuropsychomotor development of infants between 4 and 18 months of age in daycare centers. Descriptive transverse study research, with clinical trials registration : RBR 2hd6sm on November 2, 2016. Quality of life was evaluated with interviews with the family through Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory-PedsQL™ (Brazilian version). The infants were evaluated in a playful way, through the use of Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Denver II test . 88 infants participated in the study. The infants evaluated had a good quality of life, with scores above 64%. AIMS presented the correlation with for physical functioning and total score of QoL. QoL of infants from 4 to 18 months of age is correlated with their neuropsychomotor development, which suggests the need for investigations between this theme and daycare centers.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.010 |
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".