MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984424560 · doi:10.1115/1.2735970

General Uncertainty Analysis for Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Dynamics and Development of an Instrumented Wheel

2006· article· en· W1984424560 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Mallakzadeh, Farrokh Sassani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Devices · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheelchairPropulsionTransducerComputer scienceProcess (computing)SimulationControl theory (sociology)EngineeringAcousticsPhysicsAerospace engineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manual wheelchair propulsion (MWP) is an inefficient and physically straining process. A reliably fabricated and instrumented wheel can help researchers to accurately calculate the forces and moments exerted by the wheelchair users and propose strategies to improve MWP. In this study, an instrumented wheel is designed, fabricated, and validated by using general uncertainty analysis. A six-component transducer is used to measure three-dimensional forces and moments applied by the wheelchair user on the handrim. The output of the transducer are forces and moments, which are directly transmitted to a PC using a USB port. By developing the transformation equations, the actual forces and moments on the hand of the wheelchair user are calculated. The angular position of the hand on the handrim is calculated from the kinetic data obtained through the instrumented wheel, and the derived equations. The general uncertainty analysis method is used to calculate the uncertainty values for the variables of interest with the Taylor series expansions. An analysis of the results shows that it is possible to obtain reliable information for MWP by using the instrumented wheel. Most of the data have uncertainties under 5% during much of the propulsion phase, and the patterns and overall behavior of the results are comparable to published data.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical DevicesSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207