UNDERSTANDING POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE DAILY ACTIVITIES OF INFANTS SCALE WITHIN AN EDUCATIONAL PACKAGE FOR PARENTS OF INFANTS BORN PRETERM: A PILOT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An educational package was proposed to enhance parental knowledge, confidence and childrearing practices to support early motor development of infants bom preterm. This educational package is based on: the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), the Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (ICQ), the Environmental Opportunities Questionnaire (EOQ), and the Daily Activities of Infants Scale (DAIS).\nThe educational package was assessed through a longitudinal case series of three infants bom preterm at moderate risk for adverse motor outcomes, and their parents, who were followed monthly through home visits.\nParents found the AIMS to be a more useful educational tool than the DAIS. The DAIS was found difficult to complete. However, the AIMS and DAIS fulfilled their role in providing anticipatory guidance, suitability and readability of information due to the written information and pictorial illustrations. Parents did not perceive the ICQ and EOQ to be useful as educational tools despite their role in intervention planning.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".