Wheelchair skills training programme for children: A pilot study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Wheelchair skills are not typically provided when a child gets a new wheelchair. The purpose of this prospective pilot study was to determine the effectiveness of a two-day modified Wheelchair Skills Programme 3.2 for children. METHODS: Six children (ages 6-19 years) with spinal cord injuries or spina bifida were invited to participate in a two-day wheelchair skills programme provided on subsequent Saturdays. Children were tested before and after training using a modified Wheelchair Skills Test 3.2. To assess for the effect of the programme on participation, the Activity Skills for Kids was used before and one month after training. For a more qualitative reflection, an Impact Questionnaire was given at four months post-training. RESULTS: There was a significant (14%) increase in skills based on the Wheelchair Skills Test 3.2. No change in participation was measured with the Activity Skills for Kids. The Impact Questionnaire suggests the skill training allowed participants to do more, with less pain and fatigue post-training. CONCLUSIONS: A two-day wheelchair skills programme can potentially improve skill level in children with spinal cord injuries or spina bifida.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it