The use of on-line control, a developmental perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date little research has addressed the abilities of young participants to respond to a change in visual information provided during movement execution. The present study attempted to determine the ability of 45 participants (5, 7, 9 years) to respond to a change in visual information during a discrete rapid aiming movement. A perturbation paradigm, where the target size changed after movement onset was used. In the control context, movements were made to each target size (small, medium and large) with no perturbation. In contrast during the experimental context, the target always began as a medium target. Upon movement initiation the target size could remain constant or might unexpectedly become larger or smaller. Temporal, kinematic and correction data was collected to determine the control process underlying the aiming movement. The data collected supports a model of control that incorporates both open loop control during the initial impulse phase, and closed loop control during the current control phase for participants as young as five years. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2000 .M35. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 39-02, page: 0478. Adviser: Patricia Weir. Thesis (M.H.K.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2000.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".