Supporting Infants’ Motor Development through Water Activities: A Preliminary Case–Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first twelve months of an infant’s life are the most dynamic time in the development of motor activities. Water activities can positively stimulate the motor skills, visual perception, and cognitive abilities of infants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the motor development of infants aged 3–12 months participating in water activities. Participants in the study included 43 infants aged 3–12 months who attended water activities classes at Warsaw City swimming pools (n = 21) and infants not attending any classes (n = 22). Two methods of assessing motor development were used in the study: the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the Early Motor Development Questionnaire (EMQ). The raw scores of the AIMS test and the EMQ questionnaire were statistically significantly different (p < 0.05) in both groups between the first and second examinations. In contrast, there was a statistically significant improvement in motor development measured by AIMS and expressed in percentiles (p = 0.002) and in percentiles for Polish children (p = 0.030) in the water group. The age-independent total score of the EMQ before and after the intervention did not change significantly (p = 0.149). The water environment has the potential to support the motor development of infants aged 3–12 months.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".