The effect of knee-flexion angle on wheelchair turning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasingly popular hyperflexed knee-flexion angle was evaluated to determine its effects on wheelchair turning. Twenty able-bodied subjects were tested comparing the effect of full knee extension and full knee flexion on a number of parameters. We empirically measured the angular velocity of subjects spinning 720 degrees in place, subjects' perceived ease of wheelchair turning, the overall length of the wheelchair, the anteroposterior position of the center of mass (COM), rolling resistance, turning resistance and rear-wheel traction. The combined moment of inertia of the wheelchair and system was modeled. We found that, in comparison with full extension, fully flexing the knees increased angular velocity by 40% and was perceived to be 66% easier by subjects. Overall length decreased by 39%, COM moved rearward 38%, rolling and turning resistance decreased by 21% and 17% respectively, rear-wheel traction increased by 12% and moment of inertia decreased by 42%. All empirically tested parameters were statistically significant (p<0.007). We conclude that the knee-flexion angle has a significant effect on wheelchair turning. The implications of these findings for wheelchair design and prescription will need to be validated on actual wheelchair users and for smaller increments in knee-flexion range.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".