MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401276937 · doi:10.3389/fped.2024.1320338

Paediatric motor difficulties and internalising problems: an integrative review on the environmental stress hypothesis

2024· review· en· W4401276937 on OpenAlexaff
Noah Erskine, Jaime Barratt, John Cairney

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorIntrapersonal communicationAnxietyOptimismPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyInterpersonal communicationPsychotherapistSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study aims to provide an in-depth analysis and extension of the Environmental Stress Hypothesis (ESH) framework, focusing on the complex interplay between poor motor skills and internalising problems like anxiety and depression. Using an integrative research review methodology, this study synthesises findings from 38 articles, both empirical and theoretical, building upon previous foundational works. The hypothesis posits that poor motor skills serve as a primary stressor, leading to internalising problems through various secondary stressors. A rigorous comparison of data was conducted, considering study design, findings, and methodologies-while exploring variables such as age, sex, and comorbidities. The study also enhances the ESH framework by including intrapersonal stressors and introducing resource buffers, including optimism and familial support as additional influencing factors. This multi-level approach yields a more nuanced and comprehensive ESH framework, highlighting the need for future studies to consider variables that intersect across multiple domains and how the relationship between poor motor skills and internalising problems may vary across different life stages.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207