Impact of Electronic Aids to Daily Living on the Lives of Persons With Cervical Spinal Cord Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structured interviews were used to evaluate the impact of electronic aids to daily living (EADL) on functional abilities and psychosocial well-being. The participants included 32 adults (26 men, 6 women; mean age of 39 years) with cervical spinal cord injuries. The experiences of 16 EADL users were compared with a control group of 16 nonusers, using the Functional Autonomy Measuring Scale, the Lincoln Outcome Measures for Environmental Controls, and the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale. Results show EADL users had significantly better performance (p < .05) than nonusers for instrumental activities of daily living and for 75% of 12 daily tasks. Many non-users had hands-free control of phones only, whereas EADL users had control over many other household devices, which optimized their independence. The psychosocial impact of this technology was very positive for competence, adaptability, and self-esteem. In conclusion, functional abilities were greater for a variety of daily tasks, and psychosocial impact was positive when EADLs were used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".