MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7163344800 · doi:10.35508/eceds.v3i2.9237

Early Childhood Physical Motor Development

2022· article· W7163344800 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Childhood Education Development and Studies (ECEDS) · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Education
Canadian institutionsSelkirk College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotor skillChild developmentVariety (cybernetics)Early childhoodPhysical developmentMaturity (psychological)Motor system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motor development is one aspect that must be considered in its development in early childhood. Motor development is often used as a benchmark to prove that children are growing and developing well. Motor development is something that talks about coordinated physical movements, so that in its development it takes a variety of appropriate stimulation for early childhood. Motor development is one of the most important factors in the development of the individual as a whole. Basically, this development develops in line with the maturity of the nerves and muscles of the child. Thus, every movement, no matter how simple, is the result of a complex interaction pattern of various parts of the system in the body that is controlled by the brain. The results of this study indicate that children who have good physical-motor development, when children are able to coordinate their body muscle movements optimally. Conducive environment, parenting patterns, nutritious food are factors that support children's physical-motor development, especially when they are still under the age of five (toddlers).

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.263 · 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