Skeletal Maturity Standards for French-Canadian Children of School-Age with a Discussion of the Reliability and Validity of Such Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results are reported of a cross-sectional study of 4,084 Montreal schoolchildren between the ages of 6 and 17. Hand-wrist X-rays of the children were evaluated according to the Tanner-Whitehouse skeletal maturity system. When scored by the 20-bone TWII weights, the results revealed a slight delay for the French-Canadian children compared to the British standards. However, when measured on the separate RUS and carpals weighting systems, the French- Canadians showed a large advance by the RUS system but delay by the carpals. A reliability study was made of the bone-stage coding, which was converted into reliability estimates for the final scores. The observed differences of up to 50 maturity points on the 20-bone scores could just be due to inter-assessor bias in the coding, but the larger differences of up to 120 points on the separate systems could not be so explained. The opposing direction of these differences suggests that skeletal maturity cannot be treated as a unitary concept.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".