Exploring Winter Community Participation Among Wheelchair Users: An Online Focus Group
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
The aim of this qualitative study was to gain an understanding of what people who use wheeled mobility devices (WMDs; e.g., manual and power wheelchairs, and scooters) identify as environmental barriers to community participation in cold weather climates, and to explore recommendations to overcome environmental barriers to community participation. Researchers conducted an online asynchronous focus group that spanned seven days, with eight individuals who use WMDs. Each day, participants were asked to respond to a moderator-provided question, and to engage with one another around the topic area. The researchers analyzed the verbatim data using an inductive content-analysis approach. Four categories emerged from the data: (1) winter barriers to community participation; (2) life resumes in spring and summer; (3) change requires awareness, education, and advocacy; and (4) winter participation is a right. Participants confirmed that it is a collective responsibility to ensure that WMD users are able to participate in the community throughout the seasons.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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